Legal Opinion

Ettinger v. Triangle-Pacific Corp.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided May 9, 2002PublishedCited by 54 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

TODD, J.:

¶ 1 This personal injury action arises out of an injury suffered in a fall by Appellant Boyd E. Ettinger (“Ettinger”) while he was working as an electrician at a manufacturing plant that was under reconstruction. Ettinger and his wife, Esther E. Ettinger, appeal the judgment1 in favor of *99Appellee Production Systems Incorporated (“PSI”)2 and present a question of first impression to this Court. We are asked to determine, inter alia, whether an item that is being assembled by its producer is a “product” and whether one of its assemblers is a “user” under Section 402A of the Restatement…

2Cases cited34 opinions

  1. Hamil v. BashlineSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1978
  2. Webb v. ZernSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1966
  3. Azzarello v. Black Bros. Co., Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1978
  4. Harman Ex Rel. Harman v. BorahSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2000
  5. Johnston the Florist, Inc. v. TEDCO Construction Corp.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1995

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

3Cited by54 opinions

  1. Braun v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2011
  2. McManamon v. WashkoSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2006
  3. Commonwealth v. RobertsonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2005
  4. Trombetta v. Raymond James Financial Services, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2006
  5. American Future System, Inc. v. Better Business Bureau of Eastern PennsylvaniaSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2005

49 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