Legal Opinion

Schindler v. Sofamor, Inc.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided April 23, 2001PublishedCited by 27 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

LALLY-GREEN, J.:

¶ 1 Appellants, Dorothy T. and Robert E. Schindler, appeal from the order dated February 15, 2000, granting judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) in favor of Appellee Stuart Pharmaceutical Company (Stuart). We affirm.

¶2 On December 15, 1994, Appellants filed a complaint against Stuart and other parties. 1 The complaint alleged that Stuart distributed a defectively-designed spinal fixation rod that broke after it was surgically implanted in Mrs. Schindler’s spine. 2 The case proceeded to a four-day trial in December 1998. The trial court summarized the evidence as follows.

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Webb v. ZernSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1966
  2. Azzarello v. Black Bros. Co., Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1978
  3. Moure v. RaeuchleSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1992
  4. Dambacher by Dambacher v. MallisSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985
  5. Davis v. Berwind Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1997

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

3Cited by27 opinions

  1. Helpin v. Trustees of the University of PennsylvaniaSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2009
  2. Lockley v. CSX Transportation Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2010
  3. Beard v. Johnson and Johnson, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2012
  4. Donoughe v. Lincoln Electric Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2007
  5. Hadar v. Avco Corp.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2005

22 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