Legal Opinion
Diehl v. Blaw Knox
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Decided March 12, 2004No. 02-3151PPublishedCited by 19 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
SMITH, Circuit Judge.
This products liability case, arising under the law of Pennsylvania, presents a question of admissibility under Federal Rule of Evidence 407 of remedial measures offered by a plaintiff to establish that a product is defective. Timothy Diehl was severely injured when his legs became trapped under the rear wheels of a machine manufactured by Blaw-Knox. Mr. Diehl and his wife sued Blaw-Knox, 1 alleging that the machine was defective because (1) its rear wheels were not enclosed, (2) it lacked a back-up alarm on the rear of the machine, and (3) it lacked proper warning…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Azzarello v. Black Bros. Co., Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1978
- Francis J. McQueeney v. Wilmington Trust Company, Trustee, and Anndep Steamship CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1985
- Stecyk v. Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2002
- Lewis v. Coffing Hoist Div., Duff-NortonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
- Grenada Steel Industries, Inc. v. Alabama Oxygen Company, Inc. And Sherwood-Selpac CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1983
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- Marra v. Philadelphia Housing AuthorityCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2007
- Paul R. Forrest v. Beloit Corporation Harnischfeger Industries, IncCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2005
- Blumer v. Ford Motor Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2011
- Mulley v. PeopleSupreme Court of The Virgin Islands · 2009
- State v. MartinSupreme Court of Vermont · 2007
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.