Skip to main content
Federal & State Lawfederalstatelaw.com
Home/Federal/Cases
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 7/27/1989

Leaphart v. Whiting Corp.

Citations

  • 564 A.2d 165
  • 387 Pa. Super. 253
  • 1989 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2197

How courts have described this case

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

  • stating that “[i]n Pennsylvania, the subsequent repair rule, forbidding admission of evidence of subsequent repair in a negligence action, is inapplicable in a strict liability case”
  • issue did not involve design changes, but post-sale repair work performed on the unit that actually injured the plaintiff
  • issue did not involve design changes, but post-sale repair work performed on the unit that actually injured the plaintiff
  • issue did not involve design changes, but post-sale repair work performed on the unit that actually injured the plaintiff
  • issue did not involve design changes, but post-sale repair work performed on the unit that actually injured the plaintiff
  • “even if the evidence [of industry standards] was in fact inadmissible, the appellants, having introduced the evidence in their case in chief, cannot later deprive their opposition of the privilege of denying it.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Wieand, Popovich, Hester

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

23 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

27 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.