1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. A.3d
  4. 11 A.3d
  5. 11 A.3d 924 (2011)
 

SCHMIDT v. BOARDMAN CO.

No. 13 WAP 2009.

11 A.3d 924 (2011)

Joyce A. SCHMIDT, Administratrix of the Estate of Erin D. Schmidt, Deceased; Joyce A. Schmidt, in her own right, and Lindsay Schmidt, a Minor, by her Mother and Natural Guardian, Joyce A. Schmidt, v. BOARDMAN COMPANY, a Division of TBC Fabrication, Inc.; Boardman, Inc.; TBC Fabrication, Inc.; Coraopolis Volunteer Fire Department; Sinor Manufacturing, Inc., n/k/a Freightliner Specialty Vehicles, Inc., and Freightliner Specialty Vehicles, Inc. and Peter Jeffress and Michele Jeffress, individually and on behalf of their Minor Daughters Joeylynne Jeffress and Lauren Jeffress v. Coraopolis Volunteer Fire Department; Boardman Company, a Division of TBC Fabrication, Inc.; Boardman Inc.; Sinor Manufacturing, Inc.; and Freightliner Specialty Vehicles, Inc. Appeal of Sinor Manufacturing, Inc., n/k/a Freightliner Specialty Vehicles, Inc., and Freightliner Specialty Vehicles, Inc.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Decided January 24, 2011.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Kim M. Watterson , Reed Smith LLP, Pittsburgh, for Sinor Manufacturing, et al.

James Michael Beck , Dechert LLP, Philadelphia, for Appellant Amicus Curiae, Product Liability Advisory Council, Inc.

Anthony John Rash , Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote, P.C., Pittsburgh, for Boardman, Inc.

Vicki Linn Beatty , Pittsburgh, Law Offices of Joseph M. Ghabour, P.C., for Coraopolis Volunteer Fire Department.

John P. Gismondi , Gismondi & Associates, P.C., Pittsburgh, for Peter Jeffress, et al.

Alan H. Perer , Swensen, Perer & Kontos, Pittsburgh, for Joyce A. Schmidt.

BEFORE: CASTILLE, C.J., SAYLOR, EAKIN, BAER, TODD, McCAFFERY, GREENSPAN, JJ.

OPINION AND OPINION IN SUPPORT OF REVERSAL

Justice SAYLOR.1

This civil litigation arises out of an accidental, in-transit deployment of a fire-engine hose, which caused the death of one child, severe injuries to another, and emotional distress on the part of family-member witnesses.

Appeal was allowed to consider: 1) whether this Court should adopt the product-line exception to the general rule of successor non...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases