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 4 courts 1964–2003 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 |
|---|---|---|
Berkebile v. Brantly Helicopter Corp.green2 sentences1996The duty to provide a non-defective product is non-delegable. ” Walton v. Avco Corp., 530 Pa. 568, 576-77 , 610 A.2d 454, 459 (1992) (quoting Berkebile v. Brantly Helicopter Corp., supra at 100, 337 A.2d at 903 ). (emphasis added) Accordingly, the question of whether the sophisticated user defense is viable under Pennsylvania law is unclear and for that reason, defendant is not entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 1992The duty to provide a non-defective product is non-delegable____ 462 Pa. at 100-103 , 337 A.2d at 902-903 (citations omitted). | 1 | 3 |
Nowak Ex Rel. Nowak v. Faberge U.S.A., Inc.green2 sentences2003See Nowak, 812 F. Supp. at 496 (refusing to find misuse as a matter of law and holding that a jury could find a consumer’s puncturing of a hair spray can as foreseeable since “the warnings on the can specifically advised against puncturing and avoiding proximity to a flame and, consequently, it is difficult to understand how the manufacturer can claim that the puncturing in this case near a flame was unforeseeable.”) As stated above, Glodzik’s failure to read Whink’s label does not foreclose recovery since she is challenging the adequacy of that warning. 2003Pavlak, 145 F.3d at 886; Nowak, 812 F. Supp. at 498 . | 1 | 1 |
Walton v. Avco Corp.red2 sentences1996The duty to provide a non-defective product is non-delegable. ” Walton v. Avco Corp., 530 Pa. 568, 576-77 , 610 A.2d 454, 459 (1992) (quoting Berkebile v. Brantly Helicopter Corp., supra at 100, 337 A.2d at 903 ). (emphasis added) Accordingly, the question of whether the sophisticated user defense is viable under Pennsylvania law is unclear and for that reason, defendant is not entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 1996The duty to provide a non-defective product is non-delegable. ” Walton v. Avco Corp., 530 Pa. 568, 576-77 , 610 A.2d 454, 459 (1992) (quoting Berkebile v. Brantly Helicopter Corp., supra at 100, 337 A.2d at 903 ). (emphasis added) Accordingly, the question of whether the sophisticated user defense is viable under Pennsylvania law is unclear and for that reason, defendant is not entitled to judgment as a matter of law. | 1 | 1 |
MacKey v. Maremont Corp.green2 sentences1988See Mackey v. Maremont Corp. 350 Pa.Super. 415 , 504 A.2d 908 (1986); Berkebile v. Brantly Helicopter Corp., 462 Pa. 83 , 337 A.2d 893 (1975). 1988See Mackey v. Maremont Corp. 350 Pa.Super. 415 , 504 A.2d 908 (1986); Berkebile v. Brantly Helicopter Corp., 462 Pa. 83 , 337 A.2d 893 (1975). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Baldino v. Castagna
green
2 sentences1997Citing Baldino v. Castagna, 505 Pa. 239 , 478 A.2d 807 (1984), the Majority concludes that where, as here, the manufacturer provides a warning, the manufacturer may reasonably assume that the user will heed it. 1997Citing Baldino v. Castagna, 505 Pa. 239 , 478 A.2d 807 (1984), the Majority concludes that where, as here, the manufacturer provides a warning, the manufacturer may reasonably assume that the user will heed it. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
MEYER BY MEYER v. Heilman
green
2 sentences1991This Court, in holding that the plaintiff could not have a second opportunity against the exonerated defendant, noted that plaintiffs there “could prevail ... only if they had a right to try their cases against [the manufacturer] and the [exonerated defendant] simultaneously”; and the Court’s ultimate holding was based on the fact that plaintiff’s “cause of action against the [exonerated ' defendant] was not affected by the joinder or the subsequent removal of [the manufacturer] as co-defendant, but rather remained separate and independent throughout the proceedings.” Id., 503 Pa. at 479-480 , 1991This Court, in holding that the plaintiff could not have a second opportunity against the exonerated defendant, noted that plaintiffs there “could prevail ... only if they had a right to try their cases against [the manufacturer] and the [exonerated defendant] simultaneously”; and the Court’s ultimate holding was based on the fact that plaintiff’s “cause of action against the [exonerated ' defendant] was not affected by the joinder or the subsequent removal of [the manufacturer] as co-defendant, but rather remained separate and independent throughout the proceedings.” Id., 503 Pa. at 479-480 , | 1 | 1991–1991 |
MacPherson v. . Buick Motor Co.
green
2 sentences1964The court’s release of the manufacturer of the alleged defective component part having been conditioned by the use of the phrase, “for the present at least,” may tend to indicate that at some future date negligence liability will be imposed upon such a manufacturer under the doctrine of MacPherson v. Buick Motor Company, 217 N. Y. 382 , 111 N. E. 1050 (1916), in which the court held in the celebrated opinion of Justice Cardozo that a manufacturer is liable for negligence in making or assembling his product even to remote users or consumers with whom he has had no direct contractual relationshi 1964The court’s release of the manufacturer of the alleged defective component part having been conditioned by the use of the phrase, “for the present at least,” may tend to indicate that at some future date negligence liability will be imposed upon such a manufacturer under the doctrine of MacPherson v. Buick Motor Company, 217 N. Y. 382 , 111 N. E. 1050 (1916), in which the court held in the celebrated opinion of Justice Cardozo that a manufacturer is liable for negligence in making or assembling his product even to remote users or consumers with whom he has had no direct contractual relationshi | 1 | 1964–1964 |
Centofanti v. Penna. R. R.
green
2 sentences1964As noted, the pertinent language of the act is that the “death shall be occasioned by unlawful violence or negligence.” In the Centofanti case, supra, 244 Pa. at page 262 , the court referred to the pertinent language of the act, supra, as “the tort or wrongful act” and as “the tortious act or negligence of the wrongdoer.” The court in the Centofanti case, supra, 244 Pa. at page 263 , also stated that the purpose of the wrongful death act “is remedial and should be construed liberally.” With this in mind, this court must conclude that an action may be maintained in Pennsylvania under our wrong 1964As noted, the pertinent language of the act is that the “death shall be occasioned by unlawful violence or negligence.” In the Centofanti case, supra, 244 Pa. at page 262 , the court referred to the pertinent language of the act, supra, as “the tort or wrongful act” and as “the tortious act or negligence of the wrongdoer.” The court in the Centofanti case, supra, 244 Pa. at page 263 , also stated that the purpose of the wrongful death act “is remedial and should be construed liberally.” With this in mind, this court must conclude that an action may be maintained in Pennsylvania under our wrong | 1 | 1964–1964 |
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.