Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Heather Oberdorf v. Amazon.com Inc

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Decided July 3, 2019No. 18-1041Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partScirica, Circuit Judge

This case implicates an important yet relatively uncharted area of law. No Pennsylvania court has yet examined the product liability of an online marketplace like Amazon's for sales made by third parties through its platform. Our task, as a federal court applying state law, is to predict how the Pennsylvania Supreme Court would decide the case. Berrier v. Simplicity Mfg., Inc. , 563 F.3d 38 , 45 (3d Cir. 2009). We must take special care "to apply state law and not ... to participate in an effort to change it." McKenna v. Ortho Pharm. Corp. , 622 F.2d 657 , 663 (3d Cir. 1980) (internal…

2Cases cited24 opinions

  1. Webb v. ZernSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1966
  2. Sondra L. McKenna and James R. McKenna v. Ortho Pharmaceutical CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1980
  3. Tincher, T. v. Omega Flex, Inc., Aplt.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2014
  4. Bilt-Rite Contractors, Inc. v. Architectural StudioSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2005
  5. Musser v. Vilsmeier Auction Co., Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1989

19 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