Legal Opinion
Law v. Essick Manufacturing Co.
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
Decided December 2, 1986No. C6-86-405PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
CRIPPEN, Judge.
In this products liability case, appellant Essick/Hadco Manufacturing Co. (Essick) alleges error in the admission of expert testimony and the inclusion of certain jury instructions. We affirm.
FACTS
Respondent David Law regularly used an Essick Model 1000D cement mixer in his construction job. In January 1980, while operating the mixer, Law slipped on loose sand underneath his feet. He reached with his arm to break his fall, but his hand went through the grille covering the opening of the mixer and into the mixing paddles below. His hand became jammed in the paddles,…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Bilotta v. Kelley Co., Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1984
- Hudson v. Snyder Body, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1982
- Gryc Ex Rel. Gryc v. Dayton-Hudson Corp.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1980
- Reinhardt v. ColtonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1983
- Connolly v. Nicollet HotelSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1960
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Johnson v. JensenCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1989
- Preferred Financial Corp. v. Quality Homes, Inc.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1989
- Kilton v. RICHARD G. NADLER & ASSOCIATESCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1989