Legal Opinion · Dissent

Alexander v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A.

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Decided March 6, 2013No. 2011-CA-1259Published

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

  1. Harris v. Pizza Hut of Louisiana, Inc.Supreme Court of Louisiana · 1984
  2. Lemann v. Essen Lane Daiquiris, Inc.Supreme Court of Louisiana · 2006
  3. Adams v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 2005
  4. Slaid v. Evergreen Indem., Ltd.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 1999
  5. Hopper v. CrownLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1990

6 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