Cummins, Inc. v. Nelson
Alaska Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
EASTAUGH, Justice.
I. INTRODUCTION
The Nelsons’ fishing boat caught fire, burned, and sank soon after Piston and Rudder Corporation (P & R) renovated it. The renovations, called a “repower,” included installation of a Cummins, Inc. marine engine. The Nelsons sued P & R, Cummins, Inc., and Cummins Northwest, Inc. A jury found that P & R acted negligently and that the Cum-mins defendants cloaked P & R with the authority to act on their behalf by directing the Nelsons to P & R and assuring them that P & R could repower their vessel. The Cummins defendants appeal. We affirm. We conclude that…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- City of Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes at Monterey, Ltd.Supreme Court of the United States · 1999
- Guin v. HaAlaska Supreme Court · 1979
- Simmons v. GarcesIllinois Supreme Court · 2002
- Del Monte Dunes at Monterey, Ltd. v. City of Monterey, Del Monte Dunes at Monterey, Ltd., and Monterey-Del Monte Dunes Corporation v. City of MontereyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1996
- Beck v. State, Department of Transportation & Public FacilitiesAlaska Supreme Court · 1992
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by26 opinions
- Sowinski v. WalkerAlaska Supreme Court · 2008
- Cameron v. CHANG-CRAFTAlaska Supreme Court · 2011
- Askinuk Corp. v. Lower Yukon School DistrictAlaska Supreme Court · 2009
- Alaska Fur Gallery, Inc. v. First National Bank AlaskaAlaska Supreme Court · 2015
- Patterson v. GEICO General Insurance CompanyAlaska Supreme Court · 2015
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.