Dougherty v. Hooker Chemical Corp.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
GARTH, Circuit Judge.
Plaintiff, as administratrix, brought this diversity action against Hooker ..Chemical Corporation, a manufacturer of trichloroethylene (hereinafter called “TRI”). She al*176leged, among other things, that Hooker failed to give adequate warnings of the dangers and fatal properties of TRI, and as a result, her husband by working with TRI sustained injuries which eventually led to his death. At the close of the plaintiff’s case, which had been limited solely to the adequacy of the warnings given by Hooker, the district court granted Hooker’s motion for a…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Webb v. ZernSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1966
- Smith v. Bell Telephone Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1959
- Incollingo v. EwingSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1971
- Incollingo v. EWINGSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1971
- Huddell v. LevinCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1976
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by43 opinions
- Neal v. Carey Canadian Mines, Ltd.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1982
- Bryant v. Technical Research Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1981
- Goodbar v. Whitehead Bros.District Court, W.D. Virginia · 1984
- Brown v. McGraw-Edison Co.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1984
- Arcell v. Ashland Chemical Co., Inc.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1977
38 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.