Legal Opinion
Brown v. Crown Equipment Corp.
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
Decided September 4, 2007No. 06-2705, 06-2706PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
BOUDIN, Chief Judge.
The central question on this appeal is whether Maine law would recognize a post-sale duty to warn claim where a manufacturer’s product is not defective at the time of sale but a hazard later develops because of a change in the user environment. Other jurisdictions have disagreed on this question and the Maine Supreme Judicial Court has not spoken. We conclude that this determinative issue should be certified to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, along with a damage computation issue arising under a Maine statute.
The relevant facts can be briefly recounted. On August 1,…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Bernier v. Raymark Industries, Inc.Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1986
- Lovick v. Wil-RichSupreme Court of Iowa · 1999
- Modelski v. Navistar International Transportation Corp.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1999
- Carrizales v. Rheem Manufacturing Co.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1991
- Crowston v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.North Dakota Supreme Court · 1994
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Ropes & Gray LLP v. Jalbert (In Re Engage, Inc.)Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2008
- Foxworth v. ST. AMANDCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2009
- Akerman v. GlaxoSmithKline, LCCDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 2017
- Ropes & Gray LLP v. JalbertCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2008
- Brown v. Crown Equipment Corp.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2009
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.