Legal Opinion · Dissent

Falkenbury v. Elder Cadillac, Inc.

Appellate Court of Illinois

Decided August 13, 1982No. 81-334Published

1DissentJustice Welch

The majority employs many often-used rules of law, derived from section 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts. I cannot take issue with this language, as it has become a well-established part of the rhetoric of strict products liability. But in applying these generalities to the facts of this case, the majority has reached a result which, in effect, substitutes the foreseeability of the accident for the unreasonably dangerous nature of the product as the outer limit of liability. Because this is an unprecedented and unrealistic expansion of the law of products liability, I must dissent…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Kerns v. EngelkeIllinois Supreme Court · 1979
  2. Susan Passwaters, by Donald Passwaters, Her Father and Next Friend, and Donald Passwaters v. General Motors CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1972
  3. Ford Motor Company, a Corporation v. Marvin D. ZahnCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1959
  4. Ford Motor Co. v. KikisSupreme Court of Florida · 1981
  5. Hatch v. Ford Motor Co.California Court of Appeal · 1958

8 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