Rogers v. Johnson & Johnson Products, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• The Superior Court decided the Rogers decision cited earlier on remand from the Supreme Court decision cited here.
• “[S]o long as the plaintiffs presented a casein-chief free of secondary causes which justified the inference of a defect in the product, the jury was free to accept their scenario.”
• use of the malfunction theory to prove a defect does not relieve the supplier from liability simply because another concurring cause is also responsible for producing injury
• “a plaintiff [may] prove a defect in a product with evidence of the occurrence of a malfunction and with evidence eliminating abnormal use or reasonable, secondary causes for the malfunction.”
• “[W]e believe that so long as the plaintiffs presented a case-in-chief free of secondary causes which justified the inference of a defect in the product, the jury was free to accept their scenario.”
• malfunction theory of products liability permits a plaintiff to prove a defect in a product with evidence of the occurrence of a malfunction and with evidence eliminating abnormal use or reasonable, secondary causes for the malfunction

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Other cases named Rogers v. Johnson & Johnson Products, Inc.

2 other CourtListener records share this case name.

• Rogers v. Johnson & Johnson Products, Inc.
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1990-12-04· cited 19×
• Rogers v. Johnson & Johnson Products, Inc.
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1987-11-06· cited 7×