CHARLOTTE MATTOCKS AND KEVIN MATTOCKS, A MINOR, BY CHARLOTTE MATTOCKS, HIS MOTHER, APPELLANTS,
v.
DAYLIN, INC., APPELLEE, V. SULLCRAFT MANUFACTURING COMPANY, A CORPORATION T/D/B/A ANSON PAJAMA COMPANY, APPELLEE, V. DAN RIVER, INC. V. COMMERCIAL UNION INSURANCE COMPANY V. INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that including the phrase 'unreasonably dangerous' in a special verdict interrogatory in a Pennsylvania strict liability case is error requiring a new trial.
Plaintiffs sued for burns suffered when a child's pajamas caught fire, alleging the fabric was too flammable. The jury returned an adverse verdict.…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Failure To Warn cases and more on FLexlaw
GIBBONS, Circuit Judge.
In this diversity products liability case Charlotte Mattocks and Kevin Mattocks a minor, appeal from a judgment for the defendant following an adverse jury verdict. The plaintiffs seek damages on account of burns suffered by Kevin Mattocks when his pajamas caught fire. Their theory of liability was that the fabric from which the pajamas were made was too flammable for such use. They contend on appeal that the court erred in submitting the case to the jury on a special verdict interrogatory which asked:
Were the pajamas worn by Kevin Mattocks on the day of the accident in a condition unreasonably dangerous to a user? (emphasis added).
The appellees candidly concede that under our decisions in Baker v. Outboard Marine Corp., 595 F. 2d 176 (3d Cir. 1979), and Bailey v. Atlas Powder Co., 602 F. 2d 585 (3d Cir. 1979), inclusion of the words “unreasonably dangerous” in a special verdict interrogatory in a Pennsylvania strict liability case is error requiring a new trial.
The Mattocks also urge that the trial court erred in refusing to charge on a failure to warn theory. The court refused so to charge because of lack of proof of proximate cause between any such failure and the infant’s injuries. Since we are remanding for a new trial there is no occasion to review the evidence upon which the court relied in so ruling.
The Mattocks also contend that the court erred in refusing their request to reallocate peremptory challenges so as to equalize challenges between them and the seller defendants. This was a discretionary ruling, see 28 U.S.C. § 1870 (1976), and we have no occasion to review for an abuse of discretion since a new trial is granted on another ground.
The judgment appealed from will be reversed and the case remanded for a new trial on its strict liability claim.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gaynell Reyno v. Piper Aircraft Co., 630 F.2d 149 (3d Cir. 1980)
Authorities Cited
- Baker v. Outboard Marine Corp., 595 F.2d 176 (3d Cir. 1979)
- Bailey v. Atlas Powder Co., 602 F.2d 585 (3d Cir. 1979)