Legal Opinion

Brodsky v. Mile High Equipment Co.

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Decided April 18, 2003No. Nos. 02-1844, 02-1930PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

AMBRO, Circuit Judge.

This is a product liability case involving an ice machine that electrocuted appellant Amy Brodsky’s husband, Max Brodsky. After a jury found in favor of the defendants, Amy Brodsky - individually, as administratrix of her husband’s estate and as guardian of her daughter (in all capacities, “Brodsky”)—sought a new trial, arguing that the District Court had erroneously admitted evidence relating to industry standards and Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) citations and fines issued as a result of the accident. *55The District Court denied both the…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Lewis v. Coffing Hoist Div., Duff-NortonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
  2. Leaphart v. Whiting Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1989
  3. Markovich v. Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1992
  4. Sheehan v. Cincinnati Shaper Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1989
  5. Sessions Tank Liners, Inc. Dba Southwest Tank Liners, Inc. v. Joor Manufacturing, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1987

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Nesbitt v. Sears, Roebuck and Co.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2005
  2. Thomas ex rel. Thomas v. Staples, Inc.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2014

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

Powered by the Exa API