Smith v. Howmedica Osteonics Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “[w]ithout any factual allegation as to the nature of what went wrong during the manufacturing process, there is no plausible road to recovery for negligent manufacturing
• concluding that despite the plain language in comment k, “the Pennsylvania Supreme Court [in Hahn] has interpreted it to limit recovery for 11 failure-to-warn in Comment k cases to negligence”
• finding that the conditions in comment k that the product be “properly prepared” and “accompanied by proper directions and warning” seem, on their face, to preserve strict liability claims asserting a manufacturing defect and a failure-to-warn defect
• dismissing the breach of implied warranty claim based on a design defect with prejudice and based on a manufacturing defect without prejudice
• dismissing claim in part because plaintiff did not describe design of product “in any meaningful detail”
• dismissing negligent design claim where “[t]he only explicit reference to the product's design is the conclusory allegation that [d]efendants were negligent in such design”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).