424 Pa. Super. 473 - Fitzpatrick v. Madonna’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 22 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 54 later decisions — most recently March 2012 · most notably Forrest v. Beloit Corp. (2005), 455 Pa. Super. 384 - Riley v. Warren Manufacturing, Inc. (1997)
14 federal appellate · 22 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 20 Cal. 3d 413 - Barker v. Lull Engineering Co. · Azzarello v. Black Bros. Co., Inc. · Morena v. South Hills Health System · 336 Pa. Super. 22 - Dambacher by Dambacher v. Mallis · 320 Pa. Super. 444 - Burch v. Sears, Roebuck and Co.
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 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) The usefulness and desirability of the product — its utility to the user and to the public as a whole. (2) The safety aspects of a product — the likelihood that it will cause injury, and the probable seriousness of the injury. (3) The availability of a substitute product which would meet the same need and not be as unsafe. (4) The manufacturer’s ability to eliminate the unsafe character of the product without impairing its usefulness or making it too expensive to maintain its utility. (5) The user’s ability to avoid danger by the exercise of care in the use of the product. (6) The user’s anticipated awareness of the dangers inherent in the product and their avoidability, because of general public knowledge of the obvious condition of the product, or of the existence of suitable warnings or instructions. (7) The feasibility on the part of the manufacturer, of spreading the loss of setting the price of the product or carrying liability insurance.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage“the gravity of the danger posed by the challenged design; the likelihood that such danger would occur; the mechanical feasibility of a safer design; the financial cost of a safer design; and the adverse consequences to the product that would result from a safer design.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“product left the supplier's control lacking any element necessary to make it safe for its intended use or possessing any feature that renders it unsafe for the intended use.”
2 later decisions 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.