Iandiorio v. Kriss & Senko Enterprises, Inc.
Pennsylvania Supreme Court
517 A.2d 530 (1986)
- Written by Meagan Anglin, JD
Facts
Ciro Iandiorio (plaintiff) worked as a gas-station attendant. He was tasked with pumping gas and collecting payment from customers. Kriss and Senko Enterprises (Kriss and Senko) (defendant) was remodeling the station where Iandiorio worked. One day, Iandiorio was assisting a customer when he accidentally spilled gas on his clothes. Iandiorio went into the gas-station building and told an employee of Kriss and Senko about what happened. The employee was on his break drinking coffee and, despite knowing Iandiorio’s clothes were soaked in gasoline, lit a cigarette a few feet away from him. This caused Iandiorio’s clothes to catch fire, and Iandiorio suffered serious burns as a result. Kriss and Senko knew several of its employees smoked on their breaks, so Kriss and Senko designated a specific spot for smoking. The employee lit the cigarette in the designated smoking area when this action caused Iandiorio’s clothes to catch fire. Iandiorio brought suit against Kriss and Senko. Kriss and Senko moved for a compulsory nonsuit after Iandiorio presented his case before the jury. Iandiorio moved to strike the nonsuit, and court of common pleas denied his motion. Iandiorio appealed, and the superior court affirmed the trial court’s denial. Iandiorio appealed again to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Larsen, J.)
Dissent (Flaherty, J.)
Dissent (Nix, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 805,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.