Dambacher by Dambacher v. Mallis, 500 A.2d 428 (Pa. 1985). · Go Syfert
Search
Dambacher by Dambacher v. Mallis, 500 A.2d 428 (Pa. 1985). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
54 citation events (7 in the last 25 years) across 13 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Wright v. Residence Inn by Marriott, Inc. (pasuperct, 2019-04-09) · Strongest negative: Flanagan v. Labe (pasuperct, 1995-10-19)
Treatment trajectory · 1985 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1985 2005 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers.
discussed Cited "but see" Flanagan v. Labe
Pa. Super. Ct. · 1995 · signal: but see · confidence high
But see Dambacher by Dambacher v. Mallis, 336 Pa.Super. 22, 43 , 485 A.2d 408, 419 (1984), appeal denied, 508 Pa. 643 , 500 A.2d 428 (1985) (noting that although a witness’s experience and education may embrace the subject in question in a general way, the subject may be so specialized that the witness will not be qualified to testify.
discussed Cited "see" Wright v. Residence Inn by Marriott, Inc.
Pa. Super. Ct. · 2019 · signal: see · confidence high
See Dambacher by Dambacher v. Mallis , 336 Pa.Super. 22 , 485 A.2d 408 , 419 (1984), appeal dismissed, 508 Pa. 643 , 500 A.2d 428 (1985). 3 As we stated, the scope of [a] witness's education and experience may embrace the subject in question in a general way, but the subject may be so specialized that even so, the witness will not be qualified to testify. *977 Thus, every doctor has a general knowledge of the human body.
cited Cited "see" Trach v. Thrift Drug Inc.
pactcompllehigh · 2000 · signal: see · confidence high
See Dambacher by Dambacher v. Mallis, 336 Pa. Super. 22, 36-37 , 485 A.2d 408, 415 (1984), appeal dismissed, 508 Pa. 643 , 500 A.2d 428 (1985).
discussed Cited "see" Griggs v. Bic Corporation.
3rd Cir. · 1992 · signal: see · confidence high
See Dambacher v. Mallis, 336 Pa.Super. 22 , 485 A.2d 408, 424 (1984) ("[I]n a negligence case the plaintiff must prove, not only that the defect caused his injury and that the product was defective, but in addition, that in manufacturing or supplying the product the defendant failed to exercise due care."), appeal dismissed, 508 Pa. 643 , 500 A.2d 428 (1985). 50 Viewing the negligence claim as merely one step beyond strict liability, however, obscures the true difference between negligence and strict liability under Pennsylvania law.
discussed Cited "see" Griggs v. BIC Corp.
3rd Cir. · 1992 · signal: see · confidence high
See Dambacher v. Mallis, 336 Pa.Super. 22 , 485 A.2d 408, 424 (1984) (“[I]n a negligence case the plaintiff must prove, not only that the defect caused his injury and that the product was defective, but in addition, that in manufacturing or supplying the product the defendant failed to exercise due care.”), appeal dismissed, 508 Pa. 643 , 500 A.2d 428 (1985).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Lavish v. Archbold Ladder Co.
pactcomplphilad · 1999 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also, Steele v. Sheppard, 411 Pa. 481, 485-86 , 192 A.2d 397, 400 (1963) (holding witness having no personal experience with theater seats or carpets was unqualified to testify as expert on cost of repair and replacement). . 336 Pa. Super. 22, 37 , 485 A.2d 408, 416 (1984), appeal dismissed, 508 Pa. 643 , 500 A.2d 428 (1985). .
cited Cited "see, e.g." Argust v. Dick MacKey General Contracting Co.
Pa. · 1990 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Dambacher by Dambacher v. Mallis, 336 Pa.Super. 22 , 485 A.2d 408, 415 (1984), appeal dismissed 508 Pa. 643 , 500 A.2d 428 (1985).
Joann DAMBACHER, a minor, by her parents and natural guardians, William J. DAMBACHER and Joann Dambacher, and William J. Dambacher and Joann Dambacher, in their own right, Appellants,
v.
Nicholas J. MALLIS, Jr., Sears, Roebuck & Company and Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Nov 21, 1985.
500 A.2d 428
Nix, C.J., and Larsen, Flaherty, McDermott, Hutchinson, Zappala and Papadakos.
Published

Gustine J. Pelagatti, Philadelphia, James D. McDonald, Jr., Erie, amicus — for Pa. Trial Lawyers Ass'n.

Bernard J. Smolens, Sherry A. Swirsky, Philadelphia, for Sears, Roebuck & Co.

[*644] Alan H. Ross, Philadelphia, for Nicholas Mallis.

Gary B. Gilman, Albert Grube, Deputy Attys. Gen., for Dept. of Transp.

Timothy P. Ryan, Victor E. Schwartz, Kathryn Kelly, Washington, D.C., amicus — for Product Liability Advisory Council — Pro Hac Vice Granted.

William H. Crabtree, Edward P. Good, Detroit, Mich., amicus — for Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Assoc.

Before NIX, C.J., and LARSEN, FLAHERTY, McDERMOTT, HUTCHINSON, ZAPPALA and PAPADAKOS, JJ.

ORDER

Prior Report: 336 Pa.Super. 22, 485 A.2d 408.

PER CURIAM:

Appeal dismissed as having been improvidently granted.

LARSEN and ZAPPALA, JJ., dissent.