Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Miller v. Preitz

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided June 24, 1966No. Appeal, 21Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Concurring and Dissenting Opinion by

Mr. Justice Jones:

I concur in part and dissent in part from the views expressed in the majority opinion.

The factual background of this litigation is simple. On October 1, 1961, Gloria Sewell purchased from Wallace Preitz, a druggist, a vaporizer-humidifier which had been manufactured by Northern Electric Company and distributed by Rexall Drug Company. On January 27, 1962, Earl B. Coakley, the purchaser’s minor nephew and next door neighbor, became ill. The vaporizer-humidifier was being used for this child in accordance with its ordinary purpose of…

2Cases cited46 opinions

  1. MacPherson v. . Buick Motor Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1916
  2. Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1963
  3. Ultramares Corp. v. ToucheNew York Court of Appeals · 1931
  4. Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1960
  5. Suvada v. White Motor Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1965

41 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