Coward v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
JOHNSON, J.:
¶ 1 In this product liability case, we are asked to determine whether a plaintiff should be afforded the use of a rebuttable presumption that he or she would have followed an adequate warning had one been given where warnings or instructions are required to make a product non-defective and a warning has not been given. We conclude that Pennsylvania jurisprudence poses no impediment to the adoption of such a “heeding presumption.” Accordingly, we find no error in the rulings of the trial court and, for the following reasons, we affirm.
¶ 2 Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corporation…
2Cases cited28 opinions
- Berkebile v. Brantly Helicopter Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1975
- Azzarello v. Black Bros. Co., Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1978
- Phillips v. A-Best Products Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1995
- Salvador v. Atlantic Steel Boiler Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1974
- Eckenrod v. GAF Corp.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1988
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by49 opinions
- Gregg v. VJ Auto Parts, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2007
- Goldstein v. Phillip Morris, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2004
- J.S. v. WhetzelSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2004
- Cooper v. SchoffstallSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2006
- Maya v. Johnson & JohnsonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2014
44 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.