E.D. Pennsylvania· 4/27/2017

Smith v. Howmedica Osteonics Corp.

Citations

251 F. Supp. 3d 844
92 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 630
2017 WL 1508992
2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64170

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).

Judges: Beetlestone

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

2 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

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

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.