Legal Opinion

Fraust v. Swift and Co.

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania

Decided May 23, 1985No. Civ. A. 84-1344PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM OPINION

TEITELBAUM, Chief Judge.

In this products liability action the defendant asks the Court to rule, as a matter of law, that its product is not unreasonably dangerous. The action arises from an incident in which Isaac J. Fraust, then 16 months old, choked while eating Peter Pan Creamy Peanut Butter spread on bread. As a result, Isaac suffered severe brain damage.

It is plaintiffs’ theory that the peanut butter supplied by the defendant was unsafe for its intended use because it lacked a warning that it should not be fed to children under four years of age. Plaintiffs contend…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Berkebile v. Brantly Helicopter Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1975
  2. Azzarello v. Black Bros. Co., Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1978
  3. Dambacher by Dambacher v. MallisSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985
  4. Sherk v. DAISY-HEDDON, ETC.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1982
  5. Robert Allen Brown and Lola v. Brown, Wife v. Caterpillar Tractor Company, a CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1984

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Staymates v. ITT Holub IndustriesSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
  2. Hon v. Stroh Brewery Co.District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 1987
  3. Michael J. Pendleton v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, Pennsylvania Attorney General’s Office, and Warden of SCI-SomersetDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 2026

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

Powered by the Exa API