Legal Opinion · Dissent

Durden v. Hydro Flame Corp.

Montana Supreme Court

Decided August 3, 1999No. 98-491Published

1DissentJustice Nelson

Introduction

¶3 3 As the maj ority opinion points out, resolution of the issue on appeal presents a practical dilemma of choosing between two competing public policies — one favoring settlements and the other favoring placing responsibility upon the “up stream” manufacturer of a defective product notwithstanding that the manufacturer is released from liability by the injured plaintiff. In the context of this case — a strict products liability action — I cannot agree with the Court that the former policy must take precedence over the latter. To the contrary, I conclude that the latter policy…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Brandenburger v. Toyota Motor Sales, U. S. A., Inc.Montana Supreme Court · 1973
  2. State Ex Rel. Deere & Co. v. District Court of the Fifth Judicial DistrictMontana Supreme Court · 1986
  3. Poulsen v. Treasure State Industries, Inc.Montana Supreme Court · 1981
  4. Lechuga, Inc. v. MontgomeryCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1970
  5. Sternhagen v. Dow Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1997

1 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