Legal Opinion

Moroney v. General Motors Corp.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided April 7, 2004PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDel Sole, P.J.

¶ 1 This appeal follows a jury trial and verdict in favor of the defendant General Motors Corporation (GMC), finding, in response to an interrogatory, that the design of its vehicle which included an automatic unlock feature was not defective.

¶ 2 The trial court summarized the relevant background of this case:

On June 1, 1995 at approximately 3:00 P.M. Maureen Moroney (“Moroney”) arrived at Kmart to shop. While she was driving through the parking lot she noticed Vaxter [defendant Chester Vaxter, Jr.] walking through the parking lot. In her testimony, Moroney indicated that based upon Vaxter’s…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Phillips v. Cricket LightersSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2003
  2. Dambacher by Dambacher v. MallisSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985
  3. Spino v. John S. Tilley Ladder Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1997
  4. Turney Media Fuel, Inc. v. Toll Bros., Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1999
  5. Griggs v. BIC Corp.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1992

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

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. McManamon v. WashkoSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2006
  2. Soufflas v. Zimmer, Inc.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2007
  3. Sutch, R. v. Roxborough MemorialSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2016
  4. Donoughe v. Lincoln Electric Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2007
  5. Fisher v. Central Cab Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2008

8 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