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.
6 Pennsylvania opinions name it 2 courts 1984–2005 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 |
|---|---|---|
Incollingo v. Ewinggreen2 sentences1993Comment h to the section makes it clear that a product, as to which adequate warning of danger involved in its use is required, sold without such warning is in a “defective condition.” Comment j states that “in order to prevent the product from being unreasonably dangerous, the seller may be required to give directions or warning, on the container, as to its use.” The comment continues: “Where warning is given, the seller may reasonably assume that it will be read and heeded; and the product bearing such a warning, which is safe for use if it is followed, is not in defective condition nor is i 1993Comment h to the section makes it clear that a product, as to which adequate warning of danger involved in its use is required, sold without such warning is in a "defective condition." Comment j states that "in order to prevent the product from being unreasonably dangerous, the seller may be required to give directions or warning, on the container, as to its use." The comment continues: "Where warning is given, the seller may reasonably assume that it will be read and heeded; and the product bearing such a warning, which is safe for use if it is followed, is not in defective condition nor is i | 3 | 4 |
Incollingo v. EWINGgreen2 sentences1996Baldino v. Castagna, 505 Pa. at 247 , 478 A.2d at 811 ; Incollingo, 444 Pa. at 287, 282 A.2d at 219. 1996Baldino v. Castagna, 505 Pa. at 247 , 478 A.2d at 811 ; Incollingo, 444 Pa. at 287, 282 A.2d at 219. | 3 | 3 |
Baldino v. Castagnagreen2 sentences2005Thus, for Appellants to succeed in their product liability action, it was necessary for them to prove that the product would not have been safe even if the warnings were followed and the windshield was in place when the fragment flew toward the operator. ¶ 12 The courts of this Commonwealth have recognized and applied Com ment j of Section 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, which provides in part: “Where warning is given the seller may reasonably assume that it will be read and heeded; and a product bearing such a warning, which is safe for use if it is followed, is not in defective co 2005Thus, for Appellants to succeed in their product liability action, it was necessary for them to prove that the product would not have been safe even if the warnings were followed and the windshield was in place when the fragment flew toward the operator. ¶ 12 The courts of this Commonwealth have recognized and applied Com ment j of Section 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, which provides in part: “Where warning is given the seller may reasonably assume that it will be read and heeded; and a product bearing such a warning, which is safe for use if it is followed, is not in defective co | 1 | 2 |
Davis v. Berwind Corp.green2 sentences2005Thus, for Appellants to succeed in their product liability action, it was necessary for them to prove that the product would not have been safe even if the warnings were followed and the windshield was in place when the fragment flew toward the operator. ¶ 12 The courts of this Commonwealth have recognized and applied Com ment j of Section 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, which provides in part: “Where warning is given the seller may reasonably assume that it will be read and heeded; and a product bearing such a warning, which is safe for use if it is followed, is not in defective co 2005Thus, for Appellants to succeed in their product liability action, it was necessary for them to prove that the product would not have been safe even if the warnings were followed and the windshield was in place when the fragment flew toward the operator. ¶ 12 The courts of this Commonwealth have recognized and applied Com ment j of Section 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, which provides in part: “Where warning is given the seller may reasonably assume that it will be read and heeded; and a product bearing such a warning, which is safe for use if it is followed, is not in defective co | 1 | 1 |
Cafazzo v. Central Medical Health Services, Inc.green2 sentences1996(Emphasis added). [4] Compare Coyle v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc., 526 Pa. 208, 212-16 , 584 A.2d 1383, 1385-87 (1991) (applying comment k to exclude strict liability for pharmacists who sell prescription drugs with inadequate warnings); Cafazzo v. Central Medical Health Services, Inc., 542 Pa. 526, 536 , 668 A.2d 521, 526 (1995) (noting exemption from strict liability for prescription drugs under comment k). [1] To my knowledge, comment j has been cited by this Court only three times. 1996(Emphasis added). [4] Compare Coyle v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc., 526 Pa. 208, 212-16 , 584 A.2d 1383, 1385-87 (1991) (applying comment k to exclude strict liability for pharmacists who sell prescription drugs with inadequate warnings); Cafazzo v. Central Medical Health Services, Inc., 542 Pa. 526, 536 , 668 A.2d 521, 526 (1995) (noting exemption from strict liability for prescription drugs under comment k). [1] To my knowledge, comment j has been cited by this Court only three times. | 1 | 1 |
Coyle v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc.green2 sentences1996(Emphasis added). [4] Compare Coyle v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc., 526 Pa. 208, 212-16 , 584 A.2d 1383, 1385-87 (1991) (applying comment k to exclude strict liability for pharmacists who sell prescription drugs with inadequate warnings); Cafazzo v. Central Medical Health Services, Inc., 542 Pa. 526, 536 , 668 A.2d 521, 526 (1995) (noting exemption from strict liability for prescription drugs under comment k). [1] To my knowledge, comment j has been cited by this Court only three times. 1996(Emphasis added). [4] Compare Coyle v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc., 526 Pa. 208, 212-16 , 584 A.2d 1383, 1385-87 (1991) (applying comment k to exclude strict liability for pharmacists who sell prescription drugs with inadequate warnings); Cafazzo v. Central Medical Health Services, Inc., 542 Pa. 526, 536 , 668 A.2d 521, 526 (1995) (noting exemption from strict liability for prescription drugs under comment k). [1] To my knowledge, comment j has been cited by this Court only three times. | 1 | 1 |
Pegg v. General Motors Corp.green2 sentences1985See: Incollingo v. Ewing, supra 444 Pa. at 287, 282 A.2d at 219; Pegg v. General Motors Corp., 258 Pa.Super. 59, 77 , 391 A.2d 1074, 1083 (1978). 1985See: Incollingo v. Ewing, supra 444 Pa. at 287, 282 A.2d at 219; Pegg v. General Motors Corp., 258 Pa.Super. 59, 77 , 391 A.2d 1074, 1083 (1978). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Fletcher v. Raymond Corp.
green
2 sentences2005Thus, for Appellants to succeed in their product liability action, it was necessary for them to prove that the product would not have been safe even if the warnings were followed and the windshield was in place when the fragment flew toward the operator. ¶ 12 The courts of this Commonwealth have recognized and applied Com ment j of Section 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, which provides in part: “Where warning is given the seller may reasonably assume that it will be read and heeded; and a product bearing such a warning, which is safe for use if it is followed, is not in defective co 2005Thus, for Appellants to succeed in their product liability action, it was necessary for them to prove that the product would not have been safe even if the warnings were followed and the windshield was in place when the fragment flew toward the operator. ¶ 12 The courts of this Commonwealth have recognized and applied Com ment j of Section 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, which provides in part: “Where warning is given the seller may reasonably assume that it will be read and heeded; and a product bearing such a warning, which is safe for use if it is followed, is not in defective co | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Sherk v. DAISY-HEDDON, ETC.
green
2 sentences1988Id., 498 Pa. at 597 n. 2, 450 A.2d at 617 n. 2. [8] In relevant part, comment (j) reads: "In order to prevent the product from being unreasonably dangerous, the seller may be required to give directions or warning, on the container, as to its use. * * * * * * Where warning is given, the seller may reasonably assume that it will be read and heeded, and a product bearing such a warning, which is safe for use if it is followed, is not in defective condition, nor is it unreasonably dangerous." [9] Prod.Liab.Rep. 1988Id., 498 Pa. at 597 n. 2, 450 A.2d at 617 n. 2. [8] In relevant part, comment (j) reads: "In order to prevent the product from being unreasonably dangerous, the seller may be required to give directions or warning, on the container, as to its use. * * * * * * Where warning is given, the seller may reasonably assume that it will be read and heeded, and a product bearing such a warning, which is safe for use if it is followed, is not in defective condition, nor is it unreasonably dangerous." [9] Prod.Liab.Rep. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
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.