Walker v. General Electric Co.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 federal appellate · 9 district · 3 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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Relying on a Third Circuit case interpreting Pennsylvania’s products liability law, plaintiffs argue that the application of “a malfunction theory” — whereby proof of a malfunction may be used as evidence to establish a defect — provided a sufficient evidentiary basis to allow the case to go to the jury on the issue of defect. Sochanski v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 689 F.2d 45 (3d Cir.1982). We disagree. In Sochanski , the court carefully specified that the “malfunction theory” did not alter the requirements of section 402(A) of the Restatement (Second) of Torts (also the basis for Maine’s strict liability statute). Sochanski, 689 F.2d at 50 . The court was clear that “evidence of a malfunction, then, is not a substitute for the need to establish that the product was defective.” Id. In a later Third Circuit case, the court explained that Pennsylvania’s “malfunction theory” is simply a specific application of the general rules of proof in products liability cases in that a plaintiff may meet the burden of proving a defect either by pointing to some specific dereliction by the manufacturer in the design or construction of the product or “by showing an unexplained occurrence and eliminating all reasonable explanations for the occurrence other than the existence of a defect.” Ocean Barge Transport Co. v. Hess Oil Virgin Islands Corp., 726 F.2d 121, 124 (3d Cir.1984). Plaintiff remains with the burden of negating other reasonable explanations for the malfunction. Id. The court conclud”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 480 F. Supp. 2d 392 - Canning v. Broan-Nutone, LLC

2. “an examination of the utility of [the product's] design, the risk of the design and the feasibility of safer alternatives.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Espeaignnette v. Gene Tierney Co.

3. “in order to maintain a claim for breach of the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for particular purpose,”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Starr Surplus Lines Ins. Co. v. Mountaire Farms Inc.