Legal Opinion

Phillips v. Cricket Lighters

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided September 28, 2005No. 35 WAP 2004PublishedCited by 108 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

Chief Justice CAPPY.

This is an appeal by allowance. We are asked to resolve whether the Superior Court properly reversed the trial court’s entry of summary judgment, thus allowing the breach of warranty and punitive damages claims to proceed in this matter. For the reasons that follow, we now reverse.

On the night of November 30, 1993, two year old Jerome Campbell (“Jerome”) retrieved a Cricket disposable butane cigarette lighter which belonged to his mother, Robyn Williams (“Robyn”). It is uncontested that this butane lighter lacked any child-resistant feature. Jerome was able to use…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Ertel v. Patriot-News Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1996
  2. Hutchison Ex Rel. Hutchison v. LuddySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2005
  3. Martin v. Johns-Manville Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985
  4. Kirkbride v. Lisbon Contractors, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1989
  5. Kassab v. SoyaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1968

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by108 opinions

  1. Doe v. LiberatoreDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 2007
  2. Boring v. Google Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2010
  3. Ponzini v. PrimeCare Medical, Inc.District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 2017
  4. Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors Ex Rel. Estate of Lemington Home for the Aged v. Baldwin (In Re Lemington Home for the Aged).Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2015
  5. Soufflas v. Zimmer, Inc.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2007

103 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