Legal Opinion

Michael SURACE; Alice Surace, H/w, Appellants, v. CATERPILLAR, INC.; CMI Corporation, Appellees

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Decided April 22, 1997No. 95-1805PublishedCited by 69 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION OF THE COURT

BECKER, Circuit Judge.

This is a products liability case, Restatement of Torts 2d § 402A, arising out of a construction accident in which the treads of a huge road profiler machine ran over the foot of plaintiff Michael Surace. Surace brought suit against CMI Corporation (“CMI”), the manufacturer of the machine, in the district court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. 1 The district court, concluding that the evidence contained in the summary judgment record failed to demonstrate that the profi-ler’s risks outweighed its utility, and also that the profiler presented…

2Cases cited52 opinions

  1. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1993
  2. In Re Paoli Railroad Yard PCB LitigationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1994
  3. Colautti v. FranklinSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
  4. Barker v. Lull Engineering Co.California Supreme Court · 1978
  5. Webb v. ZernSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1966

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

3Cited by69 opinions

  1. David Oddi v. Ford Motor CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2000
  2. Tincher, T. v. Omega Flex, Inc., Aplt.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2014
  3. Daniel G. Padillas v. Stork-Gamco, IncCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1999
  4. Berrier v. Simplicity Manufacturing, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2009
  5. Oddi v. Ford Motor Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2000

64 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