Gregory v. Cincinnati Inc.

I agree with the majority that, on the facts of this case, the trial court erred in permitting plaintiff Michael Gregory to present a theory of recovery against defen*53dant Cincinnati Incorporated based on a postsale obligation to recall the allegedly defective product. I would, however, affirm the verdict against the defendant seller, Addy-Morand Machinery Company. I also write separately to clarify the analysis for determining when such obligations might arise.

i

The majority correctly notes that imposing post-sale obligations is unnecessary where a product is defective at the time of sale. If…