According to the record before this court, the Plaintiff had made a demand in excess of the diversity jurisdictional amount.
According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff claimed food poisoning from eating bread from a loaf of bread he had purchased.
The court otherwise noted that the Plaintiff failed to establish that the alleged defective condition existed at the time of the sale, thereby precluding any strict liability claims. The court also found that the Plaintiff did not have any evidence to support the allegation that the alleged defect caused his claimed injuries.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.
I send thanks to Attorney James Beck of the Philadelphia office of the Reed Smith law firm for bringing this case to my attention.
The court otherwise noted that the Plaintiff failed to establish that the alleged defective condition existed at the time of the sale, thereby precluding any strict liability claims. The court also found that the Plaintiff did not have any evidence to support the allegation that the alleged defect caused his claimed injuries.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.
I send thanks to Attorney James Beck of the Philadelphia office of the Reed Smith law firm for bringing this case to my attention.



No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.