Legal Opinion
Pagnotta v. Beall Trailers of Oregon, Inc.
Court of Appeals of Washington
Decided January 25, 2000No. 18139-1-III, 18154-5-IIIPublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Brown, J. —
By summary judgment, the trial court dismissed Austin Pagnotta’s negligence and product liability complaint against Beall Trailers and Beall’s third-party complaint against Reyco Industries, a component part supplier of a trailer sold to Mr. Pagnotta’s employer. The trial court decided Mr. Pagnotta’s experts were incompetent to rebut expert testimony favoring Beall and Reyco. We reverse because (1) Mr. Pagnotta’s experts were competent to testify to the extent of their expertise, and (2) expert testimony is not required in a design defect products liability case to establish a…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Young v. Key Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 1989
- State v. OrtizWashington Supreme Court · 1992
- Seattle-First National Bank v. TabertWashington Supreme Court · 1975
- McKee v. American Home Products Corp.Washington Supreme Court · 1989
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Thongchoom v. Graco Children's Products, Inc.Court of Appeals of Washington · 2003
- Higgins v. Intex Recreation Corp.Court of Appeals of Washington · 2004
- DuRocher v. Riddell, Inc.District Court, S.D. Indiana · 2015
- Gemini Farms L.L.C. v. Smith-Kem Ellensburg, Inc.Court of Appeals of Washington · 2001
- Apodaca v. Eaton CorporationDistrict Court, W.D. Washington · 2020
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.