Skip to main content

Schmidt v. Boardman Co.

Citations

  • 958 A.2d 498
  • 2008 Pa. Super. 203
  • 2008 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2458

How courts have described this case

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

  • “[T]he only stated mandatory requirements of the product-line exception in Pennsylvania [are] the three Ray factors[.]”
  • bystanders who witnessed relatives killed and/or injured by defective product allowed to recover under Section 402A for emotional distress even though they suffered no physical injuries
  • judgment notwithstanding the verdict denied on same product line element to defendant successor corporation that produced “fire wagons” with alterations as compared to the injury causing fire truck
  • bystanders who witnessed relatives killed and/or injured by [a] defective [fire hose] allowed to recover under [Second Restatement] Section 402A for emotional distress even though they suffered no physical injuries
  • adopting the trial court's reasoning as its own

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Allen, Bender, Files, Melvin

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

19 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

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

Other cases with this 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.