Pompa v. Hojnacki
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Roberts,
This appeal raises the question of the admissibility of the “factual statements” contained in an expert’s report prepared for purposes of litigation. We hold that the report was inadmissible hearsay, vacate the judgment and remand for a new trial.
Appellant-plaintiff was injured by fragments of glass from a broken beer bottle. He brought suit against the brewer, the distributor, the retail seller and the bottle manufacturer claiming that the bottle exploded because of a defect in its manufacture or distribution. Appellant retained bottle fragments as evidence…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Palmer v. HoffmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1943
- Calderaio v. RossSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1959
- Githens, Rexsamer & Co. v. WildsteinSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1968
- Rapoport v. SirottSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1965
- Neuman v. Pittsburgh Railways Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1958
3Cited by36 opinions
- Gonzales v. Procaccio Bros. Trucking Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1979
- Commonwealth v. MaySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2006
- Dion v. Graduate Hospital of the University of PennsylvaniaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
- Duquesne Light Co. v. Woodland Hills School DistrictCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1997
- Warren v. Mosites Construction Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1978
31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.