holding that “the Schmidt panel’s elevation of the Ray factors to mandatory status was based on a plain misreading of the seminal product[]line decision in Dawejko. Thus, the most appropriate approach to reconciling governing Superior Court precedent is to correct Hill’s mistake and to revert to Dawejko”
How later courts described this case
- holding that “the Schmidt panel’s elevation of the Ray factors to mandatory status was based on a plain misreading of the seminal product[]line decision in Dawejko. Thus, the most appropriate approach to reconciling governing Superior Court precedent is to correct Hill’s mistake and to revert to Dawejko”
- holding that because the appellant had waived the issue, it could not address the question of whether the product line exception should be maintained in Pennsylvania, or the question of whether application of the exception should be decided by the judge or the jury
- explaining that Azzarello’s “no-negligence-in-strict-liability rubric has resulted in material ambiguities and inconsistencies in Pennsylvania’s procedure.”
- asserting that the appellees’ physical manifestations of emotional trauma, which resulted from witnessing harm to a close relative, constituted “physical harm” or “physical injury” as contemplated by the Restatement (Second) of Torts Section 402A
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Justice TODD,
concurring in support of vacation and remand.
I join Parts I and II.A of the Opinion of the Court. In particular, I agree Appellant Sinor Manufacturing waived its argument relating to the viability of the product line exception in Pennsylvania. However, having found that the question regarding the exception’s existence was waived, I would stop there, and therefore do not join Part II.B of the Opinion.
I also respectfully do not join Part III, which would reverse the judgments entered in favor of Appellees for emotional distress. With respect to the physical injury issue, I join the Opinion in Support of Vacation and Remand authored by Justice Baer.