Groll v. Shell Oil Co.
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
THOMAS, J. *
Scott Groll (appellant) appeals from a motion for nonsuit granted the manufacturer, Shell Oil Company (respondent). We hold that the duty to warn the ultimate consumer, considering the method of sale, repackaging, and distribution rested with the distributor. Judgment affirmed.
Factual and Procedural History
On October 14, 1976, appellant filed a lawsuit, through his guardian ad litem Richard Groll, wherein he sought damages based on negligence, breach of warranty, and failure to warn. At the time of trial, respondent was the only defendant because appellant had previously…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1963
- Elmore v. American Motors Corp.California Supreme Court · 1969
- Campbell v. General Motors Corp.California Supreme Court · 1982
- Carmichael v. ReitzCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1971
- Barth v. B. F. Goodrich Tire Co.California Court of Appeal · 1968
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by20 opinions
- T.H. v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals CorporationCalifornia Supreme Court · 2017
- Webb v. Special Electric Co., Inc.California Supreme Court · 2016
- In Re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether ("MTBE") Products Liability LitigationDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2001
- Purvis v. PPG Industries, Inc.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1987
- Morris v. Parke, Davis & Co.District Court, C.D. California · 1987
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.