Legal Opinion
Barron v. Honeywell, Inc.
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Decided October 14, 1975No. Civ. A. No. 73-316PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
BECHTLE, District Judge.
Presently before the Court is third-party defendant Harry Rubin’s (“Rubin”) motion for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For reasons more fully set out below, the motion will be denied.
On June 21, 1972, Lorraine Barron was at work operating a plastic injection molding machine when her left hand was crushed by the machine causing multiple injuries. In their amended complaint, plaintiffs allege that the injuries were caused by: (1) the dangerous, unsafe, and defective design of the machine manufactured by…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Little Redhouse, Brady Tah, on Behalf of Themselves and Others Similarly Situated v. Quality Ford Sales, Inc., a Utah Corporation, and Thomas E. ReddCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1975
- Pirocchi v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1973
- Lockett v. General Electric CompanyDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1974
- Kao v. Red Lion Municipal AuthorityDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 1974
- Fullard v. Pittsburgh Urban Redevelopment AuthoritySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1972
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Tersiner v. Union Pacific RailroadDistrict Court, D. Kansas · 1990
- Johnston v. United StatesDistrict Court, D. Kansas · 1983
- Anthony v. Ryder Truck Lines, Inc.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1979
- Motor Master Products Corp. v. Motor Masters Warehouse, Inc.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1978
- Saaybe v. Penn Central Transportation Co.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1977
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.