Legal Opinion

DeWeese v. Anchor Hocking Consumer and Industrial Products Group

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided July 8, 1993No. 01869PublishedCited by 55 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

*49OLSZEWSKI, Judge:

This is an appeal from an order granting summary judgment in favor of defendants below [hereinafter “Anchor Hocking” and “Lewis Brothers”]. Appellant [hereinafter “DeWeese”] was injured when a glass carafe exploded while he was filling it with hot water. The Honorable Livingstone Johnson granted summary judgment because DeWeese was unable to produce the carafe to defendants for inspection during discovery. We affirm.

DeWeese was employed by Highland Country Club [hereinafter “the club”] as a busboy and waiter. On December 1, 1985, DeWeese was responsible to set up a buffet…

Also in this document: Concurrence.

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Berkebile v. Brantly Helicopter Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1975
  2. Marks v. TasmanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1991
  3. Eckenrod v. GAF Corp.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1988
  4. Dibble v. Security of America Life InsuranceSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1991
  5. Roselli v. General Electric Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1991

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

3Cited by55 opinions

  1. Cochran v. GAF Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1995
  2. Yanise Germain v. Teva Pharmaceuticals, USA, IncCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2014
  3. Schroeder v. Com., Dept. of Transp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1998
  4. Cosmas v. Bloomingdales Bros., Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1995
  5. Long v. YinglingSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1997

50 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