Germann v. F.L. Smithe MacHine Co.
Supreme Court of Minnesota
1Opinion of the Court
KELLEY, Justice.
The manufacturer properly designed an industrial hydraulic press by equipping it with safety devices. Had those devices as designed been properly attached to the hydraulic press, an operator of the machine would not have sustained an injury. The question presented is whether, under existing circumstances, the manufacturer had the legal duty to warn users or operators of the machine of the dangers inherent in its operation without having the designed safety devices functionally operative. The trial court and the court of appeals 1 ruled it did have such a duty. We concur and…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Christianson v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1896
- Bilotta v. Kelley Co., Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1984
- McCormack v. Hankscraft CompanySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1967
- Hauenstein v. Loctite Corp.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1984
- Lovejoy v. Minneapolis-Moline Power Implement Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1956
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by87 opinions
- Domagala v. RollandSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2011
- Balder v. HaleySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1987
- Kociemba v. G.D. Searle & Co.District Court, D. Minnesota · 1988
- Kallio v. Ford Motor Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1987
- Glorvigen v. Cirrus Design Corp.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2012
82 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.