Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

McLaughlin v. Michelin Tire Corp.

Wyoming Supreme Court

Decided July 12, 1989No. 87-61Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

URBIGKIT, Justice,

specially concurring and dissenting.

I. STATUS OF CASE ON APPEAL

Following adverse summary judgment on a scraper driver’s lawsuit claiming serious physical injuries caused by improperly performing equipment tires, this court considers his dismissed claims asserting liability for:

1. negligent manufacture and design of the tire by the manufacturer (Michelin);1

*702(a). strict liability for injury producing performance of a faulty product (Michelin);

2(b). strict liability for injury producing performance of a faulty product (dealer/supplier Cobre Tire);

3(a). express warranty of the…

2Cases cited131 opinions

  1. MacPherson v. . Buick Motor Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1916
  2. Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1963
  3. Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1960
  4. Barker v. Lull Engineering Co.California Supreme Court · 1978
  5. Berkebile v. Brantly Helicopter Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1975

126 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