# Berkebile v. Brantly Helicopter Corp.

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 19, 1975 · 462 Pa. 83

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9695946

## Case

- **Full name:** Catherine K. BERKEBILE, Executrix Under the Will of Cloyd C. Berkebile v. BRANTLY HELICOPTER CORPORATION, Appellant
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** May 19, 1975
- **Citations:** 462 Pa. 83; 337 A.2d 893; 1975 Pa. LEXIS 837
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Roberts
- **Judges:** Jones, Eagen, O'Brien, Roberts, Pomeroy, Nix, Manderino
- **Cited by:** 342 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Abrogated on other grounds by Reott v. Asia Trend, Inc., 618 Pa. 228 (2012).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 1
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9695946

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that, because the plaintiffs allegation was that the rotor system was defective because it did not allow enough time for the average pilot to go into autorotation, the trial court erred in instructing the jury that the plaintiffs failure to go into autorotation within …
- holding that, for policy reasons, a manufacturer should be the guarantor of its products' safety, reasoning that the distinction between strict liability and negligence is that the exercise of due care in strict liability cases is absolutely irrelevant
- holding trial court erred in instructing on manufacturer's foreseeability, as "[t]o require foreseeability is to require the manufacturer to use due care in preparing his product. In strict liability, the manufacturer is liable even if he has exercised all due care."

## Opinion text

ROBERTS, Justice
(concurring).
The trial court instructed the jury that if the pilot of the helicopter failed to place the helicopter in autorotation in time to prevent a crash, he used the helicopter in an abnormal manner and his estate would be barred from recovery. Because this instruction improperly withdrew from the jury’s consideration one of appellant’s theories of recovery — that the helicopter was defectively designed so as to make it impossible for the pilot to place the helicopter in autorotation — I concur in the majority’s decision affirming the Superior Court’s grant of a new trial.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9695946. Public record. Not legal advice.