Seibel v. Symons Corporation
North Dakota Supreme Court
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
- Olds Motor Works v. ShafferCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1911
- Lewis v. TerryCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
- Kinnischtzke v. City of Glen UllinNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1953
- Lindenberg v. FolsonNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1965
- Younger v. Dow Corning CorporationSupreme Court of Kansas · 1969
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.