Legal Opinion
East Penn Manufacturing Co. v. Pineda
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Decided July 18, 1990No. 88-885, 88-886 and 88-966PublishedCited by 60 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
FARRELL, Associate Judge:
A jury returned a verdict in favor of Francisco R. Pineda and his wife on the “failure to warn” count of their product liability claim against the manufacturer and seller of a commercial truck battery. The jury found that the warning label affixed to the battery was inadequate to apprise Pineda — a truck mechanic partially blinded after the battery exploded — of the risks associated with charging the battery, and that the inadequate warning proximately caused his injuries. On this consolidated appeal, East Penn Manufacturing Company (East Penn) and Leeth Brothers,…
2Cases cited34 opinions
- Ryan Stevedoring Co. v. Pan-Atlantic Steamship Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1956
- American Motorcycle Assn. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1978
- Washington Gas Light Co. v. District of ColumbiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1896
- Richard Leander Ferebee, Jr. v. Chevron Chemical CompanyCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1984
- Lacy v. District of ColumbiaDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1980
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by60 opinions
- R. & G. Orthopedic Appliances & Prosthetics, Inc. v. CurtinDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1991
- prod.liab.rep. (Cch) P 15,303 Ana Maria Torres-Rios v. Lps Laboratories, Inc.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1998
- Howard University v. Good Food Services, Inc.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1992
- McNeil Pharmaceutical v. HawkinsDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1996
- Dennis v. American Honda Motor Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1991
55 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.