Sheehan v. Cincinnati Shaper Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that evidence regarding governmental regulations or standards is inadmissible in strict liability cases
• holding that evidence regarding governmental regulations or standards is inadmissible in strict liability cases
• finding evidence of OSHA standards inadmissible in strict liability action for purpose of showing reasonableness of product’s design, but noting that defendant failed to offer viable theory of admissibility as to issue of causation
• evidence of OSHA standards inadmissible in strict liability claim for purpose of showing absence of design defect, as such evidence shifts jury’s focus from existence of defect to reasonableness of manufacturer’s conduct in not providing safety device for shear
• evidence of OSHA standards inadmissible in strict liability claim for purpose of showing absence of design defect, as such evidence shifts jury’s focus from existence of defect to reasonableness of manufacturer’s conduct in not providing safety device for shear

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

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

• Paul R. Forrest v. Beloit Corporation Harnischfeger Industries, Inc
  Third Circuit· 2005-09-16· cited 101×
• Lilley v. Johns-Manville Corp.
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1991-08-22· cited 84×
• Mount Olivet Tabernacle Church v. Edwin L. Wiegand Division
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2001-08-13· cited 73×
• Gaudio v. Ford Motor Co.
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2009-06-01· cited 55×
• Estate of Hicks v. Dana Companies, LLC
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2009-11-18· cited 43×
• Havasy v. Resnick
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1992-05-08· cited 39×
• Renninger, D. v. A & R Machine Shop
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2017-04-11· cited 22×
• In re Welding Fume Products Liability Litigation
  N.D. Ohio· 2007-09-14· cited 20×
• City of Philadelphia v. Duda by Duda
  Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania· 1991-07-08· cited 19×
• Putt v. Yates-American MacHine Co.
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1998-09-28· cited 16×
• Perez v. Townsend Engineering Co.
  M.D. Pennsylvania· 2008-06-19· cited 15×
• Gilbert v. Consolidated Rail Corp.
  Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania· 1993-03-16· cited 13×
• Juliano v. Johns-Manville Corp.
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1992-06-16· cited 12×
• Colegrove v. Cameron MacHine Co.
  W.D. Pennsylvania· 2001-10-23· cited 8×
• Arnoldy v. Forklift L.P.
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2007-05-22· cited 8×
• Cave v. Wampler Foods, Inc.
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2008-11-12· cited 6×
• Nesbitt v. Sears, Roebuck and Co.
  E.D. Pennsylvania· 2005-10-20· cited 4×
• Barr v. City & County of Philadelphia
  Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania· 1995-01-27· cited 2×
• Brodsky v. Mile High Equipment Co.
  Third Circuit· 2003-04-18· cited 2×
• Forrest v. Beloit Corp
  Third Circuit· 2005-09-16