Legal Opinion

Bornsen v. Pragotrade, LLC

North Dakota Supreme Court

Decided September 15, 2011No. 20110087PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

CROTHERS, Justice.

[¶ 1] The United States District Court for the District of North Dakota certified a question to this Court whether we apply the “apparent manufacturer” doctrine to N.D.C.C. ch. 28-01.3. We answer the question “No.”

I

[¶ 2] Ruth and Nathan Bornsen brought a products liability action in state district court against Pragotrade, LLC, Pragotrade, Inc., and Cabela’s Retail, Inc., for negligence, strict liability, and breach of warranty, alleging Ruth Bornsen injured her hand on November 21, 2007, while using a meat grinder manufactured by Pragotrade and purchased from Cabe-la’s. The…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Northern Pacific Railroad v. HerbertSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
  2. Nuelle Ex Rel. Reinhardt v. WellsNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1967
  3. Fitzmaurice v. FitzmauriceNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1932
  4. Cermak v. CermakNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1997
  5. City of Dickinson v. ThressNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1940

12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Estate of Christeson v. GilstadNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2013
  2. Mosser v. Denbury Resources, Inc.North Dakota Supreme Court · 2017
  3. Blasi v. Bruin E&P PartnersNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2021
  4. Heinrich v. Master Craft Engineering, Inc.District Court, D. Colorado · 2015
  5. Waslaski v. StateNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2013

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API