Grant v. Bridgestone/Firestone Inc.
Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
1Opinion of the Court
HERRON, J.,
This opinion addresses the preliminary objections of defendants Bridge-stone/Firestone Inc. and Ford Motor Co. to the second consolidated amended complaint of the class action plaintiffs. Because the plaintiffs have not suffered a failure of the allegedly defective tires on their vehicles, their claim for breach of implied warranty of merchantability is legally insufficient and must be dismissed. The remaining objections are without merit and are overruled.
BACKGROUND
The background in this matter is set forth in greater detail in the court’s opinion dated June 12,2001.1 In short,…
2Cases cited32 opinions
- Commonwealth v. Monumental Properties, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1974
- Hinchliffe v. American Motors Corp.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1981
- Helen W. ANGUS, Appellant, v. SHILEY INC.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1993
- Dambacher by Dambacher v. MallisSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985
- Briehl v. General Motors CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1999
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Samuel-Bassett v. Kia Motors America, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2011
- Dennis Speerly v. General Motors, LLCCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2025
- Ajose v. Interline Brands, Inc.District Court, M.D. Tennessee · 2016
- Samuel-Bassett v. Kia Motors America, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2011
- Roamingwood Sewer & Water Association v. National Diversified Sales, Inc.District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 2024
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.