Legal Opinion
Harries v. General Motors Corp.
District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
Decided March 5, 1992No. 1:CV-91-1172PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM
McCLURE, District Judge.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Irose Harries commenced this diversity action on September 5, 1991, to recover damages for injuries sustained in an automobile accident while riding in the rear seat of an automobile manufactured by the defendant, General Motors Corporation (“GM”). Harries claims that the back seat was defectively designed and seeks redress based on theories of strict liability, negligence and breach of warranty. On November 12, 1991, GM filed a third-party complaint against Kenneth B. Wallen, the driver of the vehicle in which Harries was a passenger. GM…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Huddell v. LevinCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1976
- Patricia J. McInnis v. A.M.F., Inc., Patricia J. McInnis v. A.M.F., Inc.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1985
- Edward Rabatin v. Columbus Lines, Inc. And Union Carbide Corporation. Appeal of Columbus Lines, IncCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1986
- Svetz for Svetz v. Land Tool Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1986
- Craigie v. General Motors Corp.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1990
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Harsh v. PetrollSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2005
- Resolution Trust Corp. v. FarmerDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1993
- Carrasquilla v. Mazda Motor Corp.District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 1997