Appeal from judgment of Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County, Jan. T., 1971, No. 76, in case of Salvatore D'Antona v. Hampton Grinding Wheel Company, Inc., Setco Industries, Inc., and Lehigh, Inc.
Robert A. Freedberg and Louis S. Minotti, for appellant.
Mark H. Scoblionko, and Scoblionko & Scoblionko, for appellee.
Wright, P. J., Watkins, Jacobs, Hoffman, Spaulding, Cercone and Spaeth JJ. Opinion by Hoffman, J. Cercone, J., concurs in the result. Jacobs, J., dissents.
[ 225 Pa. Super. Page 121]
Appellant contends that the court below erred in sustaining appellee's preliminary objections to his complaint because it failed to state a cause of action.
In the amended complaint, appellant alleged that he was employed as a castings grinder on January 30, 1970. In the course of his employment, his machine's grinding wheel exploded into fragments striking and seriously injuring appellant's arms and legs.
[ 225 Pa. Super. Page 122]
Appellant filed complaints against three defendants: his employer (Lehigh Industries);*fn1 the manufacturer of the grinding wheel (Hampton, Inc.); and the manufacturer of the grinding wheel machine (Setco, Inc.), appellee herein. The allegations indicate that Hampton sold the wheel to Lehigh which installed it on a grinding wheel machine manufactured and sold by Setco. The complaint also averred that the wheel was a component part of the machine to which it was attached.
Appellant averred that both Setco and Hampton were liable for negligence, breach of warranty and strict liability under § 402A, Restatement of Torts 2d. In the warranty and 402A claims,*fn2 appellant advanced as alternative theories of recovery that: (1) Hampton sold a defective wheel which malfunctioned causing his injuries; or (2) Setco manufactured and sold a defective machine which malfunctioned causing the component wheel to explode.*fn3 Hampton and Setco both
[ 225 Pa. Super. Page 123]
demurred to the complaint. Setco's demurrer was sustained and Hampton's denied.
In determining whether preliminary objections should have been sustained, we must examine the averments of the complaint and determine whether they would permit recovery if ultimately proven. Ottman v. Nixon-Nirdlinger, 301 Pa. 234, 151 A. 879 (1930). If any doubt exists on this issue, the objections ...