Vinciguerra, C. v. Bayer of: Crane Co. - No. (Granted) (petitions for allowance of appeal)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT CHARLOTTE VINCIGUERRA, EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF FRANK VINCIGUERRA, DECEASED AND CHARLOTTE VINCIGUERRA, WIDOW IN HER OWN RIGHT v. BAYER CROPSCIENCE INC., AS SUCCESSOR TO AMCHEM PRODUCTS, INC., F/K/A BENJAMIN FOSTER COMPANY, BELL & GOSSETT, BRAND INSULATIONS, INC., CERTAIN-TEED CORP., CLEAVER-BROOKS, A DIVISION OF AQUA-CHEM, INC., CRANE CO., DAVID MOSER, DFT, INC., DURABLA CANADA, LTD., E.I. DUPONT DENEMOURS & COMPANY, FOSTER WHEELER CORPORATION, GEORGIAPACIFIC CORP., GOODYEAR CANADA, INC., THE GOODYEAR TIRE 7 RUBBER CO., GOULDS PUMPS, INC., GREENE, TWEED & COMPANY, INC., GRINNELL CORPORATION, HAJOCA CORPORATION, HERMAN GOLDNER CO., INC., HONEYWELL INC., INGERSOLL RAND COMPANY, JOHN CRANE, INC., KEELER/DORR-OLIVER BOILER CO., MARLEY COOLING TOWER, METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE CO., OWENS-ILLINOIS INC., PECORA CORP., RILEY STOKER CORP., SEPCO CORPORATION, INC., SID HARVEY INDUSTRIES, INC., F/K/A SID HARVEY MID ATLANTIC INC., UNION CARBIDE CORP., WARREN PUMPS, LLC, WEIL MCLAIN, A DIVISION OF THE MARLEY CO., A WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF UNITED DOMINION INDUSTRIES, INC., YARWAY : No. 447 EAL 2015 : : : Petition for Allowance of Appeal from : the Order of the Superior Court : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : CORPORATION, AVOCET ENTERPRSES, INC., F/K/A VENTFABRICS, INC., DAP PRODUCTS, INC., DURO DYNE CORP., AND TREMCO INC. PETITION OF: CRANE CO. : : : : : : : : ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW, this 1st day of February, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED, LIMITED TO the issue set forth below. Allocatur is DENIED as to all remaining issues. The issue, as stated by Petitioner, is: Whether, under the Court’s recent decision in Tincher v. Omega Flex, Inc., 104 A.3d 328 (Pa. 2014), a defendant in a strict-liability claim based on a failure-to-warn theory has the right to have a jury determine whether its product was “unreasonably dangerous[?]” Mr. Justice Eakin did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter. [447 EAL 2015] - 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.