Legal Opinion
Duchess v. Langston Corp.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Decided April 19, 2001No. 37 W.D. Appeal Dkt. 1999PublishedCited by 41 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
SAYLOR, Justice.
Appeal was allowed to determine whether evidence of a subsequent design change should be admissible in a strict products liability action to establish product defect.
On May 12, 1990, Appellee Donald J. Duchess (“Duchess”) was injured while cleaning internal components of a machine manufactured by Appellant, Langston Corporation (“Langston”), which was sold to Duchess’ employer, 4-M Manufactur*532ing, in June of 1988. In August of 1991, Duchess and his wife commenced the present civil action, asserting causes of action based upon theories of negligence and strict liability.…
2Cases cited50 opinions
- Columbia & Puget Sound Railroad v. HawthorneSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
- Ault v. International Harvester Co.California Supreme Court · 1974
- Forrest A. Flaminio and Gloria Flaminio v. Honda Motor Company, Ltd., a Japanese CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1984
- Grenada Steel Industries, Inc. v. Alabama Oxygen Company, Inc. And Sherwood-Selpac CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1983
- Werner v. Upjohn Co.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1980
45 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by41 opinions
- Tincher, T. v. Omega Flex, Inc., Aplt.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2014
- Phillips v. Cricket LightersSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2003
- Berrier v. Simplicity Manufacturing, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2009
- Parr, J. v. Ford Motor CompanySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2014
- Lance v. WyethSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2014
36 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.