Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Curtiss v. Young Men's Christian Ass'n

Washington Supreme Court

Decided July 12, 1973No. 42523Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partHamilton, J.

(concurring in part, dissenting in part) — I concur with the view of the majority opinion and of the Court of Appeals that the trial court properly granted a new trial upon the grounds asserted. I am likewise in accord with the majority determination that in Ulmer v. Ford Motor Co., 75 Wn.2d 522, 452 P.2d 729 (1969), we adopted *468the language, and the import thereof, found in the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A, comment g at 351 (1965), which places the burden of proof upon a plaintiff, alleging injury from a defective product, that the product was in the defective condition when it left…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Ulmer v. Ford Motor Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1969
  2. Scanlan v. SmithWashington Supreme Court · 1965
  3. Pulley v. Pacific Coca-Cola Bottling Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1966
  4. Holdcroft v. Hahn Truck Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1967

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API