Joanne Bair v. Am. Motors Corp. v. Viola Janie McAden Third Party, 535 F.2d 249 (3rd Cir. 1976). · Go Syfert
Search
Joanne Bair v. Am. Motors Corp. v. Viola Janie McAden Third Party, 535 F.2d 249 (3rd Cir. 1976). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
28 citation events across 6 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Van Buskirk v. Carey Canadian Mines, Ltd. (ca3, 1985-04-17)
Treatment trajectory · 1976 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1976 2001 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 13 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Van Buskirk v. Carey Canadian Mines, Ltd.
3rd Cir. · 1985 · confidence medium
Although there has been some question as to the legal effect of the plurality decision in Berkebile, see, e.g., Bair v. American Motors Corp., 535 F.2d 249, 250 (3d Cir.1976), those questions appear to have been resolved by subsequent Pennsylvania decisions.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Lewis v. Rego Co.
3rd Cir. · 1985 · confidence medium
The doubts about the authoritativeness of Berkebile which this court expressed in Bair v. American Motors Corp., 535 F.2d 249, 250 (3rd Cir.1976), appear to have been laid to rest in Azzarello v. Black Bros.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Vargus, Wendy E., Ind. And as Administratrix of the Estate of Vargus, Jessie H., Deceased v. Pitman Manufacturing Company v. Henkels & McCoy Inc (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
3rd Cir. · 1982 · confidence medium
Two justices filed concurring opinions and three justices concurred “in the result.” The *76 many appeals in diversity cases in this circuit arguing that the Berkebile plurality opinion constituted controlling precedent impelled us to hold in Bair v. American Motors Corp., 535 F.2d 249, 250 (3d Cir. 1976) (per curiam), that “the views expressed in Chief Justice Jones’ opinion in Berkebile are not the law of Pennsylvania.” See also Beron v. Kramer-Trenton Co., 402 F.Supp. 1268, 1276-77 (E.D.Pa.1975), aff’d, 538 F.2d 318 (3d Cir. 1976).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Bertles v. Guest
E.D. Pa. · 1979 · confidence medium
In Bair v. American Motors Corp., 535 F.2d 249 (3d Cir. 1976) (per curiam), the Court held that Berkebile was not the law of Pennsylvania, and that it was proper to instruct a jury that it must find the defect “unreasonably dangerous.” Id. at 250, quoting Beron v. Kramer-Trenton Co., 402 F.Supp. 1268 (E.D.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Jennifer Baker, a Minor, by Her Parent and Natural Guardian, Susan M. Baker, and Susan M. Baker, Individually v. Outboard Marine Corp., and Third-Party v. Anna F. Pentz, Clarence L. Weller and Betty I. Weller, His Wife, and Clarence L. Weller, D/B/A Weller's Garage, Third-Party
3rd Cir. · 1979 · confidence medium
Thus, less than a majority of the court concluded that a trial court errs when it charges that section 402A liability hinges on a jury finding that a product is unreasonably dangerous. 17 Precisely because Chief Justice Jones' opinion did not have the support of a majority of the supreme court, we held in Bair v. American Motors Corp., 535 F.2d 249, 250 (3d Cir. 1976) (per curiam), that Berkebile did not change 9 longstanding Pennsylvania law 10 that a jury instruction using the "unreasonably dangerous" language of section 402A is proper.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Baker v. Outboard Marine Corp.
3rd Cir. · 1979 · confidence medium
Precisely because Chief Justice Jones’ opinion did not have the support of a majority of the supreme court, we held in Bair v. American Motors Corp., 535 F.2d 249, 250 (3d Cir. 1976) (per curiam), that Berkebile did not change 9 longstanding Pennsylvania law 10 that a jury instruction using the “unreasonably dangerous” language of section 402A is proper.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Mattocks v. Daylin, Inc.
W.D. Pa. · 1978 · confidence medium
In Bair v. American Motors Corp., 535 F.2d 249, 250 [3d Cir. 1976] the Court of Appeals stated that the view expressed in the lead opinion by Chief Justice Jones in Berkebile, supra, was not the law of Pennsylvania and that it is proper to instruct a jury that a defective condition must be found to be unreasonably dangerous to user or consumer before a finding of liability.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Bowman v. General Motors Corp.
E.D. Pa. · 1977 · confidence medium
In Bair v. American Motors Corporation, 535 F.2d 249, 250 (3d Cir. 1976) the Court of Appeals, following the incisive reasoning of our colleague Judge Daniel H.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Bunn v. Caterpillar Tractor Co.
W.D. Pa. · 1976 · confidence medium
Huyett, III in Beron v. Kramer-Trenton Co., 402 F.Supp. 1268 (E.D.Pa.1975), in which he stated (at p. 1277): . . the views expressed in Chief Justice Jones’ opinion in Berkebile are not the law of Pennsylvania, and that it is proper to instruct a jury that it must find, a defective condition be unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer.” The Third Circuit approved that decision in Bair v. American Motors Corporation, 535 F.2d 249, p. 250 (decided May 17, 1976), stating: “Commonwealth v. Little, 432 Pa. 256 , 248 A.2d 32 (1968), declined to follow a prior opinion representing the vie…
discussed Cited "see" Van Buskirk v. Carey Canadian Mines, Ltd.
3rd Cir. · 1985 · signal: see · confidence high
See Brief for ACL at 43-47 15 Although there has been some question as to the legal effect of the plurality decision in Berkebile, see, e.g., Bair v. American Motors Corp., 535 F.2d 249, 250 (3d Cir.1976), those questions appear to have been resolved by subsequent Pennsylvania decisions.
discussed Cited "see" Lewis v. Rego Company
3rd Cir. · 1985 · signal: see · confidence high
Any defendant so subsequently served may move to remand the case to the state court, but a plaintiff may not do so if jurisdiction of the United States District Court is established over the action." 103 F.Supp. at 607 ; see 1A Moore's Federal Practice p 0.168[3.-5-5] in which the author concludes that "[t]his case reaches a sound result." 4 The doubts about the authoritativeness of Berkebile which this court expressed in Bair v. American Motors Corp., 535 F.2d 249, 250 (3rd Cir.1976), appear to have been laid to rest in Azzarello v. Black Bros.
discussed Cited "see" Posttape Associates v. Eastman Kodak Company
3rd Cir. · 1976 · signal: see · confidence high
See Bair v. American Motors Co., 535 F.2d 249 (3d Cir. May 17, 1976) (Per Curiam), interpreting Berkebile v. Brantley Helicopter Corp., supra. The flaw in the film in no way made it a threat to person or tangible property.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Associates Commercial Corp. v. Bergey's GMC, Inc. (In Re Radwin Transfer of Pennsylvania, Inc.)
Bankr. E.D. Pa. · 1982 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Applying the principle to the case before us, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has held that an opinion of “less than a majority of the Court ... must be treated only as an expression of the views of a minority of the court.” Greiner v. Volkswagenwerk Aktiengeselleschaft, 540 F.2d 85, 91 (3d Cir.1976); see also, Bair v. American Motors Corp., 535 F.2d 249, 250 (3d Cir. 1976) (per curiam).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Joanne BAIR, Appellant,
v.
AMERICAN MOTORS CORPORATION v. Viola Janie McADEN, Third Party Defendant
75-2199.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
May 17, 1976.
535 F.2d 249
George J. O’Neill, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellant., Glenn C. Equi, Harvey, Pennington, Herting & Renneisen, Ltd., Philadelphia, Pa., for appellee.
Aldisert, Gibbons, Garth.
Cited by 23 opinions  |  Published

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM:

After careful consideration of the contentions presented by appellant, we will affirm the judgment of the district court. We write to record a few observations, however, because various appeals have requested us to grant relief on the theory that the recent decision in Berkebile v. Brantly Helicopter Corp., Pa., 337 A.2d 893 (1975), changed the Pennsylvania rules of strict liability.

Since 1966, § 402A of the Restatement of Torts, Second has served as the law of strict liability in Pennsylvania. Webb v. Zern, 422 Pa. 424, 220 A.2d 853 (1966). In Berkebile, Chief Justice Jones wrote the lead opinion and “held” that the requirement of “unreasonably dangerous” should be purged from the law of strict liability in Pennsylvania. The court affirmed a reversal of a verdict for defendant. Only one other justice, however, joined in Justice Jones’ opinion; three justices concurred in the result only; and two justices concurred specially, each filing a short opinion.

Commonwealth v. Little, 432 Pa. 256, 248 A.2d 32 (1968), declined to follow a prior opinion representing the views of only two justices; the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania there reasoned that an opinion “joined by only one other member of this Court has no binding precedential value.” Ibid, at 260, 248 A.2d at 35. Applying the rationale of Little to the Berkebile situation, we are constrained to accept the reasoning set forth by The Honorable Daniel H. Huyett, 3rd, in Beron v. Kramer-Trenton Co., 402 F.Supp. 1268, 1277 (E.D.Pa.1975), i. e., “that the views expressed in Chief Justice Jones’ opinion in Berkebile are not the law of Pennsylvania, and that it is proper to instruct a jury that it must find that a defective condition be unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer.”

Moreover, we note that in this case appellant submitted requests for jury instructions using the phrase “unreasonably dangerous” and made no objection to the court’s inclusion, vel non, of this phrase in its charge.

The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.