# Schmidt v. Boardman Co.

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · January 24, 2011 · 608 Pa. 327

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4964682

## Case

- **Full name:** Joyce A. SCHMIDT, Administratrix of the Estate of Erin D. Schmidt, Deceased Joyce A. Schmidt, in her own right, and Lindsay Schmidt, a Minor, by her Mother and Natural Guardian, Joyce A. Schmidt v. BOARDMAN COMPANY, a Division of TBC Fabrication, Inc. Boardman, Inc. TBC Fabrication, Inc. Coraopolis Volunteer Fire Department Sinor Manufacturing, Inc., n/k/a Freightliner Specialty Vehicles, Inc., and Freightliner Specialty Vehicles, Inc. and Peter Jeffress and Michele Jeffress, individually and on behalf of their Minor Daughters Joeylynne Jeffress and Lauren Jeffress v. Coraopolis Volunteer Fire Department Boardman Company, a Division of TBC Fabrication, Inc. Boardman Inc. Sinor Manufacturing, Inc. and Freightliner Specialty Vehicles, Inc. Appeal of Sinor Manufacturing, Inc., n/k/a Freightliner Specialty Vehicles, Inc., and Freightliner Specialty Vehicles, Inc.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** January 24, 2011
- **Citations:** 608 Pa. 327; 11 A.3d 924
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Todd
- **Judges:** Baer, Castille, Eakin, Greenspan, McCaffery, Saylor, Todd
- **Cited by:** 52 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4964682

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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 mista…
- 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.”

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4964682. Public record. Not legal advice.