Federal Case

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that the presumption that the plaintiff has read and heeded a warning “works in favor of the manufacturer or seller of a product where an adequate warning has been provided”
• predicting that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court will recognize the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress and follow the Second Restatement’s formulation, which requires “extreme and outrageous conduct”
• noting the general presumption that an individual will read and heed any warnings attached to a product
• stressing the need at the summary judgment stage to grant all reasonable inferences to the non-moving party, and finding that a reasonable jury could infer that the decedent inhaled butane from the only can that was present on his bureau
• “We now predict that Pennsylvania would adopt a rebuttable heeding presumption as a logical corollary to comment j”
• “[A]n otherwise properly designed product may still be unreasonably dangerous (and therefore ‘defective’) for strict liability purposes if the product is distributed without sufficient warnings to apprise the ultimate user of the latent dangers in the product.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).