Case ID: a2d_729/html/0069-03.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Donald J. DUCHESS and Catherine A. Duchess, Respondents, v. LANGSTON CORPORATION, Petitioner.
    Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
    May 7, 1999.
    Joseph J. Bosick, Pittsburgh, for petitioner.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM:

AND NOW, this 7th day of May, 1999, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED limited to the following issue:

Did the Superior Court err in reversing judgment in favor of Petitioner finding that' evidence of a subsequent design change was admissible as a subsequent repair as opposed to a subsequent remedial measure?