F.Supp. 381, 386 (M.D.Pa.1992) (following a Pennsylvania decision holding that “there is no cause of action for a continuing duty to warn purchasers of new developments which may make the product more safe.”); Butler v. Navistar Int’l Transp. Co., No. 89-0064-H, 1991 WL 441735, at *6, 1991 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 16701, at *19-20 (W.D.Va. Oct. 18, 1991) (court rejected plaintiff’s argument that defendant had a duty to retrofit, stating “[pjlaintiff cites no authority for this position”); Moorehead v. Clark Equip. Co., No. 86 C 1442, 1987 WL 26158, at *2, 1987 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 11096, at *5 (N.D.Ill. Dec. 2, 1987) (rejecting under Illinois law “the continuing duty of a manufacturer to notify prior purchasers of new safety devices”); Caterpillar Tractor Co. v. Ford, 406 So.2d 854, 857 (Ala.1981) (<HOLDING>); Jackson v. New Jersey Mfrs. Ins. Co., 166
holding that to prevail on strict liability claim for a defective product plaintiff must show the product was defective when it left the defendants possession and control holding that if a trial court has rejected death as a possible sentence double jeopardy bars the state from seeking the death penalty at resentencing even where rejection of the death sentence was based on a legal error holding that the plaintiff must show that there was a lack of probable cause for the criminal prosecution holding that plaintiff seeking to impose liability for death resulting from lack of rops on tractor must show that the tractor was defective when sold holding warranty liability and strict liability were both shown by proof a product was defective