370 Pa. Super. 611 - Majdic v. Cincinnati MacHine Co.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 federal appellate · 110 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 122 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The law in this Commonwealth is well-settled that an expert witness may be cross-examined on the contents of a publication upon which he or she has relied in forming an opinion, and also with respect to any other publication which the expert acknowledged to be a standard work in the field. See: Cummings v. Borough of Nazareth, 430 Pa. 255 , 242 A.2d 460 (1968); Walheim v. Kirkpatrick, 305 Pa.Super. 590 , 451 A.2d 1033 (1982); and, Brannan v. Lankenau Hospital, [254 Pa.Super.] 352, [365,] 385 A.2d 1376 (1978), rev’d. on other grounds, 490 Pa. 588 , 417 A.2d 196 (1980). In such cases, the publication or literature is not admitted for the truth of the matter asserted, but only to challenge the credibility of the witness’ opinion and the weight to be accorded thereto. Brannan v. Lankenau Hospital, supra, 885 A.2d at 1383. Learned writings which are offered to prove the truth of the matters therein are hearsay and may not properly be admitted into evidence for consideration by the jury. See: McCormick on Evidence § 321, at 899 (3d ed. 1984).”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Pledger, P. v. Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. · 450 Pa. Super. 130 - Commonwealth v. Glenn

2. “Before beginning an analysis of the evidentiary rulings involved, it is important that we remain mindful of the broad and sound social policy which underlies a seller’s liability as established by the Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 402A. Section 402A provides: (1) One who sells any product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer or to his property is subject to liability for physical harm thereby caused to the ultimate user or consumer, or to his property, if (a) the seller is engaged in the business of selling such a product, and (b) it is expected to and does reach the user or consumer without substantial change in the condition in which it is sold. (2) The rule stated in Subsection (1) applies although (a) the seller has exercised all possible care in the preparation and sale of his product, and (b) the user or consumer has not bought the product from or entered into any contractual relation with the seller. The social policy sought to be effected by the implication of the seller’s liability is very basic, very simple and very sound. As between an innocent user of a product and a manufacturer or seller who is engaged in the business of manufacturing or selling a product, risk of loss for injuries resulting from the use of a defective product shall be borne by the manufacturer and/or seller. Salvador v. Atlantic Boiler Co., 457 Pa. 24, 31-32 , 319 A.2d 903, 907 (1974). See: Webb v. Zern, 422 Pa. 424 , 220 A.2d 853 (1966) (§ 402A adopted as ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 448 Pa. Super. 327 - Spino v. John S. Tilley Ladder Co.

3. “A product’s “defective condition” may be proven through circumstantial evidence such as the occurrence of similar accidents. Cornell Drilling Co. v. Ford Motor Co., 241 Pa.Super. 129, 139 , 359 A.2d 822, 827 (1976). Evidence of similar accidents occurring at substantially the same place and under the same or similar circumstances is generally admissible to prove a manufacturer’s constructive notice of a dangerous or defective condition. However, the admission of such evidence is tempered by judicial concern that the evidence may raise collateral issues which confuse both the real issue and the jury. These matters are vested within the sound discretion of the trial court. Whitman v. Riddell, 324 Pa.Super. 177, 180-82 , 471 A.2d 521, 523 (1984). To constitute reversible error, a ruling on evidence must be shown to be erroneous and harmful to the complaining party. Id., [ 324 Pa.Super. at 177-79 ] 471 A.2d at 521 , quoting Anderson v. Hughes, 417 Pa. 87, 90-92 , 208 A.2d 789, 791 (1965).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 448 Pa. Super. 327 - Spino v. John S. Tilley Ladder Co.