Legal Opinion · Dissent

Chairez v. James Hamilton Construction Co.

New Mexico Court of Appeals

Decided May 15, 2009No. 27,581, 28,201Published

1DissentKennedy, Judge

{38} NCR’s unaltered design of the 22-year-old crushing plant would have prevented Chairez’s injury. The alteration critical to causing the injury — removing the plate steel “shield” separating the feed hopper of the crusher from the area where the flywheels rotated — serves no purpose that has been described in the evidence (or by the majority). Second, by emphasizing the foreseeability of the alterations, the majority has deemphasized the other required element for imposing strict liability — whether the product’s use was foreseeable. I would affirm the district court’s order granting…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. State v. WilsonNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1994
  2. Mull v. Zeta Consumer ProductsSupreme Court of New Jersey · 2003
  3. Noebel v. Housing AuthoritySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1959
  4. prod.liab.rep.(cch)p 12,293 Otis Austin v. Lincoln Equipment Associates, Inc., Appeal of Garlock Equipment Co.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1989
  5. Madsen v. ScottNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1999

3 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