Schroeder v. Com., Dept. of Transp.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
NIGRO, Justice.
This case presents the Coisrt’s first opportunity to address whether product liability defendants and a non-product liability defendant are entitled to summary judgment when the plaintiff has allegedly failed to preserve a defectively-designed product. For the reasons discussed below, we reverse the Commonwealth Court’s decision affirming the grant of summary judgment for Appellees.
*246Navistar International Transportation Corporation designed and manufactured the cab and chassis of a truck and sold them to Sheets Truck Center in August of 1986. Gary and Kelly Schroeder…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Nanty-Glo Boro. v. American Surety Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1932
- Eric Esher Schmid v. Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation Eric SchmidCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1994
- Penn Center House, Inc. v. HoffmanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1989
- Beers v. Bayliner Marine Corp.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1996
- Rogers v. Johnson & Johnson Products, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1989
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by80 opinions
- David Oddi v. Ford Motor CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2000
- Gutteridge v. A.P. Green Services, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2002
- Pyeritz v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2011
- Eichman v. McKeonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2003
- Krentz v. Consolidated Rail Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2006
75 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.