Legal Opinion

O'BRIEN v. Muskin Corp.

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Decided August 2, 1983PublishedCited by 137 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

POLLOCK, J.

Plaintiff, Gary O’Brien, seeks to recover in strict liability for personal injuries sustained because defendant, Muskin Corporation, allegedly marketed a product, an above-ground swimming pool, that was defectively designed and bore an inadequate warning. In an unreported decision, the Appellate Division *176reversed the judgment for defendants and remanded the matter for trial. We granted certification, 91 N.J. 548 (1982), and now modify and affirm the judgment of the Appellate Division. In reaching that result, we conclude that…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Dolson v. AnastasiaSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1969
  2. Suter v. San Angelo Foundry & MacHine CompanySupreme Court of New Jersey · 1979
  3. Cepeda v. Cumberland Engineering Company, Inc.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1978
  4. Beshada v. Johns-Manville Products Corp.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1982
  5. Michalko v. Cooke Color & Chemical Corp.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1982

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

3Cited by137 opinions

  1. Feldman v. Lederle LaboratoriesSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1984
  2. Dambacher by Dambacher v. MallisSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985
  3. Banks v. ICI Americas, Inc.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1994
  4. Nesselrode v. Executive Beechcraft, Inc.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1986
  5. Dewey v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1990

132 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