Legal Opinion

Eck v. Powermatic Houdaille

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided June 1, 1987No. 441, 473, and 474PublishedCited by 50 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

WIEAND, Judge:

In the instant appeal, we are asked to determine the role of “foreseeability” in a “substantial change” defense asserted in a product liability action. The trial court charged the jury that any substantial change made to a product by a user or consumer would relieve the manufacturer and distributor of the product from liability for injuries caused thereby. Plaintiff-appellant argues that the jury should have been instructed that the manufacturer and distributor would be absolved of liability only for subsequent product modifications which were unforeseeable. We agree. Because we…

2Cases cited30 opinions

  1. Dilliplaine v. Lehigh Valley Trust Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1974
  2. Azzarello v. Black Bros. Co., Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1978
  3. Kuisis v. Baldwin-Lima-Hamilton Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1974
  4. Collins v. HandSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1968
  5. Broxie v. Household Finance CompanySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1977

25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by50 opinions

  1. Davis v. Berwind Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1997
  2. Taylor v. Celotex Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1990
  3. Jara v. Rexworks Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1998
  4. Sweitzer v. Dempster SystemsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1988
  5. Smith v. BrooksSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1990

45 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