Hite v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that “[a]ppellant in the instant case does not contend that a better design is available for the cigarette company’s product,” implying that Pennsylvania courts would recognize such a claim if properly asserted
• discussing the applicability of a risk/utility analysis in a 402A action with regard to cigarettes

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).