Lyons v. Premo Pharmaceutical Labs, Inc.

2 Citing briefs

  1. WEBB v. SPECIAL ELECTRIC COMPANY

    Respondent’s Opening Brief on the Merits

    Filed September 10, 2013

    (Id. at 84-85) Other cases reach the sameresult wherethe broker never owns, controls or possesses the product. (Lyons v. Premo Pharmaceutical Labs, Inc., 170 N.J.Super. 183, 406 A.2d 185, 196- 197 (App.Div.1979), cert. denied, 82 N.J. 267, 412 A.2d 774 [“broker” could notbestrictly liable because, though “in a sense, in the chain of distribution,” it did not exercise control over the product and was a mere facilitator who arrangedthe sale, having never had physical control of the product].) In Pennsylvania, a broker that sold a defective press to the injured worker's employer had no control or involvementin its manufacture or design, made norepresentationas to its quality or soundness, never had physical possessionof it, and therefore could not bestrictly liable.

  2. WEBB v. SPECIAL ELECTRIC COMPANY

    Respondent’s Petition for Review

    Filed April 22, 2013

    Other cases reach the same result where the broker never owns, controls or possesses the product. (Lyons v. Premo Pharmaceutical Labs, Inc. (1979) 170 N.J.Super. 183, 406 A.2d 185, 196-197 (App.Div.), cert. denied, 82 N.J. 267, 412 A.2d 774; Balczon v. Machinery Wholesalers Corp. (W.D.Pa. 1998) 993 F. Supp. 900; Musser v. Vilsmeter Auction Co., Inc. (1989) 522 Pa. 367, 562 A.2d 279, 283; Ames v. Ford Motor Co. (S.D. Tex. 2003) 299 F. Supp. 2d 678; Massey v. Cassens & Sons, Inc. (S.D. Ill., Sept. 13, 2007, 05-CV-598- DRH) 2007 WL 2710490.) The reasoning of these courts applies here.