Bylsma v. R.C.WilleyHumanTouch
Utah Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice Durrant
Introduction
¶ 1 This appeal requires us to consider whether the Liability Reform Act (LRA), Utah Code sections 78B-5-817 through 823, immunizes passive retailers from products liability claims in cases where the manufacturer is a named party. Richard and Melinda Bylsma asserted claims for strict products liability, breach of warranty, and contract rescission against R.C. Willey. The district court dismissed the tort and warranty claims under the "passive retailer" doctrine as articulated by our court of appeals in Sanns v. Butterfield Ford. R.C. Willey then stipulated to liability on the…
2Cases cited75 opinions
- Duncan v. Cessna Aircraft Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1984
- Escola v. Coca Cola Bottling Co.California Supreme Court · 1944
- Azzarello v. Black Bros. Co., Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1978
- Rogers v. Dorchester AssociatesNew York Court of Appeals · 1973
- Liriano v. Hobart Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1998
70 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- Biesele v. MattenaUtah Supreme Court · 2019
- Raser Tech. v. Morgan StanleyUtah Supreme Court · 2019
- Daniels v. Deutsche Bank National TrustCourt of Appeals of Utah · 2021
- Fehr v. StocktonCourt of Appeals of Utah · 2018
- Blanch v. FarrellCourt of Appeals of Utah · 2018
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.