About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

Case Citations [1] (April 2017 through August 2017)

handle is hein.ali/resttpl4299 and id is 1 raw text is: TORTS 3D: PRODUCTS LIABILITY Generally Pa.Super.2017. Cit. generally in disc. Buyers of concrete filed strict-products-liability actions against seller, after they sustained second-degree and third-degree chemical burns while attempting to smooth the concrete in the basement of their residence. The trial court granted summary judgment for supplier. Reversing and remanding, this court held that the determination of whether the concrete was in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the consumer should have been left to the jury to decide, as reasonable minds could disagree. The court noted that the law governing strict products liability in Pennsylvania was developed based on the principles outlined in Restatement Second of Torts § 402A, and that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court had explicitly declined to adopt the framework set forth in the Restatement Third of Torts: Products Liability. High v. Pennsy Supply, Inc., 154 A.3d 341, 347. CHAPTER 1. LIABILITY OF COMMERCIAL PRODUCT SELLERS BASED ON PRODUCT DEFECTS AT TIME OF SALE TOPIC 1. LIABILITY RULES APPLICABLE TO PRODUCTS GENERALLY § 1. Liability of Commercial Seller or Distributor for Harm Caused by Defective Products M.D.Pa.2016. Cit. in case cit. in disc. and quot. in ftn. but not fol. (general cite). Laborer who was injured while operating a stock-picker machine when its steering-wheel-fastening system malfunctioned brought claims sounding in strict liability based on a design defect and negligent design against manufacturer of the machine, alleging that manufacturer should have known that the design of the system was defective and unreasonably dangerous. This court granted in part and denied in part defendant's motion in limine. The court noted that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court had declined to adopt the Restatement Third of Torts: Products Liability, and that plaintiff's strict-liability design-defect claim was instead governed by Restatement Second of Torts § 402A. English v. Crown Equipment Corporation, 183 F.Supp.3d 618, 620. Pa.Super.2016. Cit. in disc., quot. in ftn., cit. in case cit. in disc. After two-month-old child was killed in a car accident, child's father brought claims sounding in negligence and products liability against car manufacturer and manufacturer of child's car seat. The trial court entered judgment on a jury verdict for manufacturers. This court vacated in part and remanded for a new trial, holding that the trial court erred by permitting the jury to consider evidence related to manufacturers' compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards in connection with father's strict-liability claims. The court noted that, although the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, in declining to adopt Restatement Third of Torts: Products Liability §§ 1 and 2, had nevertheless abandoned the Restatement Second's strict prohibition on introducing negligence concepts into strict-products-liability claims, it appeared that the Restatement Second's prohibition on evidence of compliance with government or industry standards in strict-liability For earlier citations, see the Appendices, Supplements, or Pocket Parts, if any, that correspond to the subject matter under examination.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most