Legal Opinion

Majdic v. Cincinnati MacHine Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided January 29, 1988No. 886PublishedCited by 77 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

DEL SOLE, Judge:

We consider an appeal from the judgment entered in Appellee’s favor in a products liability action. Following the denial of post-trial motions and judgment, an appeal to this Court was filed in which a panel of this Court affirmed the trial court. We have granted reargument, however, for three principal reasons:

1. to clarify the role which “state of the art” evidence, including evidence of industry custom and federal safety standards, plays within the context of a strict liability action;

2. to re-examine the rule which prohibits hearsay statements appearing in learned…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Webb v. ZernSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1966
  2. Berkebile v. Brantly Helicopter Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1975
  3. Azzarello v. Black Bros. Co., Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1978
  4. Dambacher by Dambacher v. MallisSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985
  5. Salvador v. Atlantic Steel Boiler Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1974

12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by77 opinions

  1. Parr, J. v. Ford Motor CompanySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2014
  2. Paul R. Forrest v. Beloit Corporation Harnischfeger Industries, IncCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2005
  3. Hutchinson v. Penske Truck Leasing Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2005
  4. Spino v. John S. Tilley Ladder Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1997
  5. Whyte v. RobinsonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1992

72 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API