Legal Opinion
Liriano v. Hobart Corp.
New York Court of Appeals
Decided August 31, 1998PublishedCited by 246 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
ClPARICK, J.
In Robinson v Reed-Prentice Div. of Package Mach. Co. (49 NY2d 471, 475), we held that a manufacturer is not responsible for injuries resulting from substantial alterations or modifications of a product by a third party that render the product defective or otherwise unsafe. The present case certifies the issue of whether a plaintiff, whose design claim is barred by the substantial modification defense stated in Robinson, may nevertheless maintain a claim for failure to warn of the consequences of such modification. Finding the issue to be an open one, the…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Voss v. Black & Decker Manufacturing Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1983
- Micallef v. Miehle Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1976
- Codling v. PagliaNew York Court of Appeals · 1973
- Robinson v. Reed-Prentice Division of Package Machinery Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1980
- Denny v. Ford Motor Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1995
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by246 opinions
- Tagle v. JakobNew York Court of Appeals · 2001
- In Re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether ("MTBE") Products Liability LitigationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2013
- O'Sullivan v. ShawMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2000
- Martin T. Kosmynka and Christine Kosmynka v. Polaris Industries, Inc., Docket No. 05-3958-CvCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2006
- Colon Ex Rel. Molina v. Bic USA, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 2001
241 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.