Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 12/3/2003

Phillips v. Cricket Lighters

Citations

841 A.2d 1000
576 Pa. 644
2003 Pa. LEXIS 2285

How courts have described this case

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

holding that negligence claims require an inquiry “into the reasonableness of the manufacturer’s conduct in creating and distributing such a product”
observing that strict liability involves “examin[ing] the product itself, and sternly eschew[ing] considerations of the reasonableness of the [defendant’s] conduct”
holding “a duty will be found to exist where the balance of these factors weighs in favor of placing such a burden on a defendant”
noting that strict liability and negligence are distinct legal theories and that a negligence claim cannot be disposed of without inquiring into reasonableness of manufacturer’s conduct in creating and distributing product
explaining that the precept that “a party who could have foreseen and avoided injuring another, but who fails to do so, is held liable for any injuries caused” is “memorialized in our tort law as a negligence cause of action”
comparing social utility of product without identifiable safety features with social utility of product with identifiable safety features

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Zappala, Cappy, Castille, Nigro, Newman, Saylor, Eakin, Former

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

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

Other cases named Phillips v. Cricket Lighters

2 other CourtListener records share this case name.

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.