Computerized Design v. Genrad, Inc.

Computerized Design and Manufacturing, Inc. (CDM) appeals from a trial court judgment dismissing its negligence claims against both defendants.1 It contends that the trial court erred in concluding that its third amended complaint did not state a claim for negligence against GenRad, Inc. (GenRad), because GenRad owed no duty to CDM, or against Grant & Roth Plastics, Inc. (Grant & Roth), because the only duties Grant & Roth owed CDM were contractual. We affirm.

Because CDM’s claims were dismissed, we take the allegations from its complaint as true. It was engaged in the computerized design and…