In his decision, Judge Leeson ruled that the Complaint was sufficiently pled so as to avoid dismissal under an argument of a shotgun pleading. However, the court noted that the allegations against “Defendants” were improperly grouped together.
The court also struck the Plaintiff’s claims alleging a post-sale duty to recall in this products liability case since no such claim is recognized under Pennsylvania law.
The court additionally ruled that shippers or distributors of products do not owe a duty of inspection or investigation into the products that they ship on to customers.
In this case, the court noted that the risk of a bacterial contamination from the product at issue was not foreseeable as to impose a duty upon the shipper. Imposing such an inspection duty on a shipper could hamper the shipper’s ability to distribute and ship products, which is an extremely socially useful service provided to the public at large.
The court additionally struck the punitive damages claim alleged by finding that punitive damages allegations cannot be based on allegations presented “on information and belief.”
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK. The Court's companion Order can be viewed HERE.
I send thanks to Attorney James M. Beck of the Reed Smith law firm in Philadelphia for bringing this case to my attention.
Source of image: Photo by Christian Wiediger on www.unsplash.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.