Case ID: pa_556/html/0435-01.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

729 A.2d 69
    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 7 th 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?