Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
7 Pennsylvania opinions name it 5 courts 1969–2020 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Pennsylvania courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Schriner v. Pa. Power & Light Co.green2 sentences2015When the transaction involves predominantly the rendition of services, the fact that tangible movable goods may be involved in the performance of services does not bring the contract under the [PCC].”) (citations omitted and emphasis in original); Schriner v. Pennsylvania Power & Light Company, 348 Pa.Super. 177 , 501 A.2d 1128, 1134 (1985) (“[I]f electricity ‘in a defective condition, unreasonably dangerous' passes through the meter of a user or consumer and into the stream of commerce, causing physical harm to the ultimate user or consumer, or to his property, the doctrine of strict liabilit 2015When the transaction involves predominantly the rendition of services, the fact that tangible movable goods may be involved in the performance of services does not bring the contract under the [PCC].”) (citations omitted and emphasis in original); Schriner v. Pennsylvania Power & Light Company, 348 Pa.Super. 177 , 501 A.2d 1128, 1134 (1985) (“[I]f electricity ‘in a defective condition, unreasonably dangerous' passes through the meter of a user or consumer and into the stream of commerce, causing physical harm to the ultimate user or consumer, or to his property, the doctrine of strict liabilit | 1 | 2 |
Wivagg v. Duquesne Light Co.green1 sentence2015When the transaction involves predominantly the rendition of services, the fact that tangible movable goods may be involved in the performance of services does not bring the contract under the [PCC].”) (citations omitted and emphasis in original); Schriner v. Pennsylvania Power & Light Company, 348 Pa.Super. 177 , 501 A.2d 1128, 1134 (1985) (“[I]f electricity ‘in a defective condition, unreasonably dangerous' passes through the meter of a user or consumer and into the stream of commerce, causing physical harm to the ultimate user or consumer, or to his property, the doctrine of strict liabilit | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Cassidy v. China Vitamins, LLC
green
2 sentences2020In 1997, the Illinois Supreme Court “held that Public Act 89-7 was void in its entirety because certain core provisions of the act were contrary to the Illinois constitution and were not severable from the remaining provisions of the act.” Cassidy, 89 N.E.3d at 950-51 . 2020In 1997, the Illinois Supreme Court “held that Public Act 89-7 was void in its entirety because certain core provisions of the act were contrary to the Illinois constitution and were not severable from the remaining provisions of the act.” Cassidy, 89 N.E.3d at 950-51 . | 2 | 2020–2020 |
Aversa v. Public Service Elec. & Gas Co.
green
1 sentence2005Super, at 135, 451 A.2d at 979 . (emphasis in original) (citations omitted) In this manner, the Schriner court arrives at its holding that: “If electricity ‘in a defective condition, unreasonably dangerous’ passes through the meter of a user or consumer and into the stream of commerce, causing physical harm to the ultimate user or consumer, or to his property, the doctrine of strict liability in tort may be applied against the public utility which ‘engaged in the business of selling such a product,’ which product ‘[was] expected to and [did] reach the user or consumer without substantial chang | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Densler v. Metropolitan Edison Co.
green
2 sentences1985Our courts have long recognized that the standard of care imposed upon a supplier of electric power, particularly when that power is supplied at high voltage, is among the highest recognized in the law of negligence, Densler v. Metropolitan Edison Company, 235 Pa.Super. 585 , 345 A.2d 758 (1975); and that, while a supplier of electricity must exer *184 cise the highest degree of care, it is not an insurer against injury. 1985Our courts have long recognized that the standard of care imposed upon a supplier of electric power, particularly when that power is supplied at high voltage, is among the highest recognized in the law of negligence, Densler v. Metropolitan Edison Company, 235 Pa.Super. 585 , 345 A.2d 758 (1975); and that, while a supplier of electricity must exer *184 cise the highest degree of care, it is not an insurer against injury. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Bialek v. Pittsburgh Brewing Co.
green
1 sentence1969He argues that in Webb v. Zern, supra, plaintiff merely walked into a room whereupon a beer keg purchased by plaintiff’s father exploded, causing injury to plaintiff and that the opinion made no attempt to categorize plaintiff as a “user.” In further support of the above contention plaintiff points out that in Miller v. Preitz, 422 Pa. 383 (1968), an infant was injured and died as a result of a defective vaporizer purchased by the infant’s aunt, and in Bialek v. Pittsburgh Brewing Company, 430 Pa. 176 (1968), a beer bottle exploded, injuring a bartender, who was neither the purchaser, nor the | 1 | 1969–1969 |
Miller v. Preitz
green
1 sentence1969He argues that in Webb v. Zern, supra, plaintiff merely walked into a room whereupon a beer keg purchased by plaintiff’s father exploded, causing injury to plaintiff and that the opinion made no attempt to categorize plaintiff as a “user.” In further support of the above contention plaintiff points out that in Miller v. Preitz, 422 Pa. 383 (1968), an infant was injured and died as a result of a defective vaporizer purchased by the infant’s aunt, and in Bialek v. Pittsburgh Brewing Company, 430 Pa. 176 (1968), a beer bottle exploded, injuring a bartender, who was neither the purchaser, nor the | 1 | 1969–1969 |
Webb v. Zern
green
1 sentence1969He argues that in Webb v. Zern, supra, plaintiff merely walked into a room whereupon a beer keg purchased by plaintiff’s father exploded, causing injury to plaintiff and that the opinion made no attempt to categorize plaintiff as a “user.” In further support of the above contention plaintiff points out that in Miller v. Preitz, 422 Pa. 383 (1968), an infant was injured and died as a result of a defective vaporizer purchased by the infant’s aunt, and in Bialek v. Pittsburgh Brewing Company, 430 Pa. 176 (1968), a beer bottle exploded, injuring a bartender, who was neither the purchaser, nor the | 1 | 1969–1969 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.