Alexander v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A.
Louisiana Court of Appeal
1DissentLandrieu, J.
_JjI would affirm the trial court. The majority’s decision expands Louisiana law by creating a duty on the part of a non-manufacturer seller of a vehicle to warn foreseeable users of the “danger inherent” in the use of a vehicle that contains an “inadequate” manufacturer’s warning label, regardless of whether the presence of that label (or the absence of a different one) renders the vehicle, or any of its component parts, defective for normal use. Without proof of a defect, there can be no duty to warn because, in the absence of a defect, there is nothing to warn about.
Whether a duty is owed…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Harris v. Pizza Hut of Louisiana, Inc.Supreme Court of Louisiana · 1984
- Lemann v. Essen Lane Daiquiris, Inc.Supreme Court of Louisiana · 2006
- Adams v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 2005
- Slaid v. Evergreen Indem., Ltd.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 1999
- Hopper v. CrownLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1990
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.