Niederman v. Brodsky
Pennsylvania Supreme Court
261 A.2d 84 (1970)
- Written by Lauren Petersen, JD
Facts
Harry Niederman (plaintiff) was walking with his son on the sidewalk of a Philadelphia street. Brodsky (defendant) was driving recklessly down the road when he skidded onto the sidewalk and then struck a fire hydrant, a garbage can, a newsstand, and finally Niederman’s son, who stood beside Niederman. Brodsky appeared to be on course to also strike Niederman, but did not. Niederman was so shocked and frightened that he immediately began to have severe chest pains. Niederman was hospitalized for five weeks for various heart ailments he had suffered, including a possible heart attack. Niederman sued Brodsky for negligence, seeking to recover damages for his heart disabilities, shock, and mental pain. The trial court dismissed Niederman’s suit for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, because there was no physical impact between Brodsky’s vehicle and Niederman. Niederman appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Roberts, J.)
Dissent (Bell, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 806,000 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.