Carrasquilla v. Mazda Motor Corp.
District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM
McCLURE, District Judge.
BACKGROUND:
By order dated September 25, 2001, we dismissed as preempted by federal law plaintiffs’ claim based upon defendants’ choice of restraint system consisting of a two-point passive shoulder belt and a manual lap belt. In that same order, we denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to claims that “(1) the Proté-gé was negligently designed and defective in design in that it lacked an adequate seat back, seat track mechanism and knee bolster; and (2) [that] defendants failed to warn adequately of the risk of harm associated with the lack of an…
2Cases cited42 opinions
- Erie Railroad v. TompkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Robin Chamberlain v. Vincent C. Giampapa, M.D., Individually and Dba Plastic Surgery Center InternationaleCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2000
- Geier v. American Honda Motor Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 2000
- Linmark Associates, Inc. v. Township of WillingboroSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
- Sondra L. McKenna and James R. McKenna v. Ortho Pharmaceutical CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1980
37 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Whitaker v. Herr Foods, Inc.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2016
- Adelphia Recovery Trust v. Bank of America, N.A.District Court, S.D. New York · 2009
- Amato v. KPMG LLPDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 2006
- Mintze v. American General Finance, Inc. (In Re Mintze)United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2003
- Durkot v. Tesco Equipment, LLCDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2009