9140 Lecture Notes - Maine Law, Product Liability, Forklift

5 views9 pages
18 Dec 2022
Department
Course
Professor

Document Summary

Lynch v. mcstome & lincoln plaza associates, 378 pa. super. Crowston v. goodyear tire & rubber co. , 521 n. w. 2d 401 (n. d. 1994) Corp. , 2008 me 186: the court recognized a post-sale duty to warn indirect, known purchasers under the facts of this case. Issue: does maine law incorporate the rule of restatement (third) of torts: products liability . As to the first question, there was a post-sale duty to warn under the circumstances presented in this case. On these facts, we have no difficulty concluding that crown owed a duty to brown as a known user of that forklift. Crown breached that duty by failing to warn brown or his employer when it had an opportunity to do so, and the jury found that this failure to warn was a proximate cause of brown"s death. Because crown had a duty at common law, we need not adopt section 10 of the restatement (third) of torts: products liability: here (pg.

Get access

Grade+20% off
$8 USD/m$10 USD/m
Billed $96 USD annually
Grade+
Homework Help
Study Guides
Textbook Solutions
Class Notes
Textbook Notes
Booster Class
40 Verified Answers
Class+
$8 USD/m
Billed $96 USD annually
Class+
Homework Help
Study Guides
Textbook Solutions
Class Notes
Textbook Notes
Booster Class
30 Verified Answers

Related Questions