Legal Opinion · Dissent

Seibel v. Symons Corporation

North Dakota Supreme Court

Decided June 26, 1974No. Civ. 8928Published

1DissentTeigen, Judge

I dissent.

The majority have held that “under the circumstances of this case, we hold that the determination of the adequacy of the warning is for the jury.” I do not agree.

At the close of the plaintiff’s case and again at the close of the entire case, the manufacturer moved for a directed verdict on several grounds, one of which was that the evidence established that the manufacturer had given its vendee (Morrison-Knudsen) adequate warning not to hang off v-shaped end rail support rods. It argued that failure to pass on the warning to the employees was the fault of Morrison-Knudsen and not…

2Cases cited23 opinions

  1. Olds Motor Works v. ShafferCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1911
  2. Lewis v. TerryCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
  3. Kinnischtzke v. City of Glen UllinNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1953
  4. Lindenberg v. FolsonNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1965
  5. Younger v. Dow Corning CorporationSupreme Court of Kansas · 1969

18 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