Bell v. Forrest Paschal Machinery Co.
Supreme Court of South Carolina
1DissentLittlejohn, Justice
I respectfully dissent.
Because I was assigned this opinion originally, Preprint here as my dissent my proposed majority opinion with appropriate modifications and some revisions.
This action brings to issue the validity and effect of several bankruptcy defenses asserted by defendant Forrest Paschal Machinery Co. against the products liability complaint of plaintiff Pamela Denise Bell.
In her complaint, Bell alleges that while employed by Richtex Corporation in November, 1974, she was injured while working on or near a brick handling machine manufactured by defendant(s) Forrest and/or…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Acme Harvester Co. v. Beekman Lumber Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1912
- In re RubinDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1965
- In re RubinDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1966
- Tolk v. WeinstenSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1975
- Michaels-Stern & Co. v. Rice's Men's Shop, Inc.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1979