Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Miller v. Preitz

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided June 24, 1966No. Appeal, 21Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Concurring and Dissenting Opinion by

Mr. Justice Roberts:

I concur in the majority’s action in reversing the judgment for defendant Preitz, the retail seller, on count two of plaintiff’s complaint. However, for the reasons stated in my dissenting opinion in DiBelardino v. Lemmon Pharmacal Co., 416 Pa. 580, 586, 208 A. 2d 283, 286 (1965), I am unable to agree with the majority’s determination that an action for wrongful death is here precluded.1

Nor am I able to agree that the absence of privity of contract between plaintiff’s decedent and the remaining defendants, Rexall and Northern Electric,…

2Cases cited43 opinions

  1. Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1963
  2. Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1960
  3. Suvada v. White Motor Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1965
  4. Seely v. White Motor Co.California Supreme Court · 1965
  5. Escola v. Coca Cola Bottling Co.California Supreme Court · 1944

38 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