O'BRIEN v. Muskin Corp.
Supreme Court of New Jersey
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
- Dolson v. AnastasiaSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1969
- Suter v. San Angelo Foundry & MacHine CompanySupreme Court of New Jersey · 1979
- Cepeda v. Cumberland Engineering Company, Inc.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1978
- Beshada v. Johns-Manville Products Corp.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1982
- 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
- Feldman v. Lederle LaboratoriesSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1984
- Dambacher by Dambacher v. MallisSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985
- Banks v. ICI Americas, Inc.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1994
- Nesselrode v. Executive Beechcraft, Inc.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1986
- Dewey v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1990
132 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.