Cummins v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
HESTER, Judge:
The matter before us for review is an Order sustaining preliminary objections of three of the twenty appellees herein, Fruehauf Corporation (hereinafter “Fruehauf”), The Budd Company (hereinafter “Budd”), and The Heil Company (hereinafter “Heil”).
The issue is whether appellant, who cannot identify the particular manufacturer of the tire and rim assembly which allegedly caused his injury, or in fact the offending product itself, can maintain an action against those manufacturers who produced substantially all of the particular parts of the machinery.
Under the circumstances of…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Hamil v. BashlineSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1978
- Webb v. ZernSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1966
- Sindell v. Abbott LaboratoriesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1980
- Vattimo v. Lower Bucks Hospital, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1983
- Hall v. EI Du Pont De Nemours & Co., Inc.District Court, E.D. New York · 1972
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by64 opinions
- Burnside v. Abbott LaboratoriesSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985
- Rastelli v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1992
- Smith v. Eli Lilly & Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1990
- Gaulding v. Celotex Corp.Texas Supreme Court · 1989
- Alumni Ass'n, Delta Zeta Zeta of Lambda Chi Alpha Fraternity v. SullivanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
59 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.