405 Pa. Super. 274 - Morris v. Pathmark Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently March 2011
3 federal appellate · 6 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Webb v. Zern · Berkebile v. Brantly Helicopter Corp. · Azzarello v. Black Bros. Co., Inc. · Incollingo v. EWING · MacKowick v. Westinghouse Electric Corp.
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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The appellant in Morris filed suit after suffering an allergic reaction following the use of a hair straightening product. The only evidence presented in the case was the unusual allergic reaction to the product. As a result, the Pennsylvania Superior Court rejected the argument that the product was defective by it being unreasonably dangerous to persons susceptible to allergic reactions to its ingredients because there was no warning to patch the product before using it. The court relied on comment (J) to section 402(A) of the Restatement (Second) of Torts which provides: “(J) Directions or warning — In order to prevent the product from being unreasonably dangerous, the seller may be required to give directions or warning, on the container, as to its use. The seller may reasonably assume that those with common allergies, as for example to eggs or strawberries, will be aware of them, and he is not required to warn against them. Where, however, the product contains an ingredient to which a substantial number of the population are allergic, and the ingredient is one whose danger is not generally known, or if known is one which the consumer would reasonably not expect to find in the product, the seller is required to give warning against it, if he has knowledge or by the application of reasonable, developed human skill and foresight should have a knowledge, of the presence of the ingredient and the danger. Likewise in the case of poisonous drags, or those unduly dangerous for ot”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.