Pennsylvania Rule

Legal Definition and Related Resources of Pennsylvania Rule

Meaning of Pennsylvania Rule

In the law of negligence , the rule is to the effect that when one party has committed a statutory violation that is alleged to have caused a collision , the alleged violator must show, if he is to be freed from fault , that the violation could not have been a cause of the collision. See Chicago & W.I.R. Co. v Motorship Buco Maru, (C. A.Ill.)505 F.2d579.

Related Entries of Pennsylvania Rule in the Encyclopedia of Law Project

Browse or run a search for Pennsylvania Rule in the American Encyclopedia of Law, the Asian Encyclopedia of Law, the European Encyclopedia of Law, the UK Encyclopedia of Law or the Latin American and Spanish Encyclopedia of Law.

Pennsylvania Rule in Historical Law

You might be interested in the historical meaning of this term. Browse or search for Pennsylvania Rule in Historical Law in the Encyclopedia of Law.

Legal Abbreviations and Acronyms

Search for legal acronyms and/or abbreviations containing Pennsylvania Rule in the Legal Abbreviations and Acronyms Dictionary.

Related Legal Terms

You might be also interested in these legal terms:

Pennsylvania Rule in Maritime Law

Note: There is more information on maritime/admiralty law here.

The following is a definition of Pennsylvania Rule, produced by Tetley, in the context of admiralty law: An almost irrebuttable presumption of causation in ship collisions (see this maritime law term in this legal dictionary) in American maritime law, established by the United States Supreme Court’s decision in ThePennsylvania, 86 U.S. (19 Wall.) 125 at p. 136 (1874), whereby when a ship, at the time of the collision, is in violation of a statutory rule, that violation is deemed to be at least a contributory cause of the collision. The presumption may only be rebutted by proof that the violation could not have been a cause of the collision. See Tetley, Int’l C. of L., 1994 at pp. 472, 484, 601-602; Tetley, “The Pennsylvania Rule – An Anachronism?” (1982) 13 JMLC 127; Tetley, Int’l. M. & A. L., 2003 at pp. 242-244.


Posted

in

by

Tags:

Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *