Legal Opinion

Sharon Proos Kosters v. The Seven-Up Company, & Third Party

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Decided March 26, 1979No. 76-2527PublishedCited by 27 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MERRITT, Circuit Judge.

During the past two decades, franchising has become a common means of marketing products and services, but our legal system has not yet settled the principles that define the liabilities of franchisors for injuries sustained by customers of their franchisees. This diversity case requires us to interpret the theories of tort and contract liability which Michigan law allows a jury to consider when deciding whether an injured purchaser is entitled to recover against the franchisor of a product.

I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE

The defendant, the Seven-Up Company, appeals from a…

2Cases cited42 opinions

  1. MacPherson v. . Buick Motor Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1916
  2. Italia Societa Rer Azioni Di Navigazione v. Oregon Stevedoring Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1964
  3. Detroit & Milwaukee Railroad v. Van SteinburgMichigan Supreme Court · 1868
  4. Turner v. Bituminous Casualty Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1976
  5. Piercefield v. Remington Arms Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1965

37 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by27 opinions

  1. In Re Beverly Hills Fire LitigationCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1982
  2. Burkert v. Petrol Plus of Naugatuck, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1990
  3. Hebel v. Sherman EquipmentIllinois Supreme Court · 1982
  4. Henkel v. R AND BOTTLING CO.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1982
  5. First American Corp. v. Al-NahyanDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 1996

22 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