Legal Opinion

Parris v. M. A. Bruder & Sons, Inc.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

Decided November 14, 1966No. Civ. A. 31667PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

LUONGO, District Judge.

This matter is before me on plaintiff’s motion for new trial.

Harry Parris, a professional spray painter, sued M. A. Bruder & Sons, Inc. (Bruder) seeking to recover damages for a disabling asthmatic condition allegedly contracted from exposure to fumes or vapors created in the spray application of an epoxy base surface coating product manufactured by Bruder. It is Parris’ contention that the product (Ply-tile) was dangerous and that Bruder was negligent in failing to give adequate instructions as to its use and in failing to give warning of the dangers it knew or…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Foley v. the Pittsburgh-Des Moines Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1949
  2. Tampa Drug Company v. WaitSupreme Court of Florida · 1958
  3. Maize v. Atlantic Refining Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1945
  4. Martin v. Bengue, Inc.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1957
  5. Florence Wright and Roy Wright v. Carter Products, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1957

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

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Smith v. Fiber Controls Corp.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1980

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API