Legal Opinion
Willmar Poultry Co. v. Carus Chemical Co.
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
Decided December 17, 1985No. C4-85-716PublishedCited by 20 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
HUSPENI, Judge.
Respondent Willmar Poultry Company (Willmar Poultry) brought this products liability action against appellant Carus Chemical Company (Carus), Reichhold Chemicals, Inc. (Reichhold), Hawkins Chemical, Inc. (Hawkins) and Thompson-Hayward Chemical Company (Thompson-Hayward), seeking to recover damages arising from a fire which occurred at Willmar Poultry’s facility. Reichhold, Hawkins, and Thompson-Hayward settled with Willmar Poultry pri- or to trial. Following a lengthy trial, the jury allocated responsibility for the fire 20% to Willmar Poultry, 80% to Carus, and 0% to…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Clarence Borel v. Fibreboard Paper Products Corporation, Nationalsurety Corporation, Intervenor-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1973
- Bilotta v. Kelley Co., Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1984
- Springrose v. WillmoreSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1971
- John A. Karjala v. Johns-Manville Products CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1975
- Strong v. E. I. DuPont de Nemours Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1981
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by20 opinions
- Burley v. Kytec Innovative Sports Equipment, Inc.South Dakota Supreme Court · 2007
- Kociemba v. G.D. Searle & Co.District Court, D. Minnesota · 1989
- Krueger v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1993
- Rusciano v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1989
- Huggins v. Stryker Corp.District Court, D. Minnesota · 2013
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.