Miller v. Preitz
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
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
- MacPherson v. . Buick Motor Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1916
- Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1963
- Ultramares Corp. v. ToucheNew York Court of Appeals · 1931
- Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1960
- Suvada v. White Motor Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1965
41 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.