Legal Opinion

Brandimarti v. Caterpillar Tractor Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided June 3, 1987No. 00970PublishedCited by 51 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

DEL SOLE, Judge:

The underlying action in the instant case was initiated by Appellant based upon a theory of strict liability. Appellant sought damages for the injuries he suffered when the forklift he was operating overturned. Named as defendants were the manufacturer of the forklift, Towmotor, Inc., Towmotor’s parent company, Caterpillar Tractor Company, and the seller of the forklift, Beckwith Machinery Co. Appellant alleged that the forklift was defectively designed and came equipped with inadequate warnings. After testimony in the case was concluded, the trial court directed a verdict in…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Azzarello v. Black Bros. Co., Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1978
  2. Reilly v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation AuthoritySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985
  3. Martin v. Johns-Manville Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985
  4. Dambacher by Dambacher v. MallisSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985
  5. Burch v. Sears, Roebuck and Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1983

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

3Cited by51 opinions

  1. Alvin DILLINGER, Appellant, v. CATERPILLAR, INC., a Delaware Corporation; Wheeler MacHinery Company, Inc., a Utah CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1992
  2. Yoder v. Honeywell, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1997
  3. Lilley v. Johns-Manville Corp.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1991
  4. Reott v. Asia Trend, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2012
  5. Michael SURACE; Alice Surace, H/w, Appellants, v. CATERPILLAR, INC.; CMI Corporation, AppelleesCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1997

46 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