Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Dambacher by Dambacher v. Mallis

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided July 16, 1985No. 2813 and 3148Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partWieand, Judge

A jury found that Sears, Roebuck & Company (Sears) had marketed a defective, steel-belted, radial tire because it failed to imprint on the wall of the tire a warning against using it in conjunction with non-radial tires. On appeal from a judgment entered on the verdict, Sears contends (1) that the adequacy of the warning was submitted to the jury improperly and on inadequate instructions; (2) that the trial court erred in permitting opinion testimony from witnesses who were not properly qualified as experts; (3) that the trial court erred in several evidentiary rulings; and (4) that the court…

2Cases cited109 opinions

  1. Barker v. Lull Engineering Co.California Supreme Court · 1978
  2. Webb v. ZernSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1966
  3. Clarence Borel v. Fibreboard Paper Products Corporation, Nationalsurety Corporation, Intervenor-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1973
  4. Voss v. Black & Decker Manufacturing Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1983
  5. Berkebile v. Brantly Helicopter Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1975

104 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