Legal Opinion
George W. Florom v. Elliott Manufacturing, a Nebraska Corporation, and Elliott Equipment Corporation, a Nebraska Corporation
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Decided July 12, 1989No. 86-1656PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Per curiam
OPINION ON REHEARING
Upon consideration of the petition for rehearing of defendant-appellee Elliott Equipment Corporation (New Elliott) requesting that the court withdraw and revise its opinion with regard to the duty to warn issue, a response we ordered, and a reply thereto, the petition is denied. 1
New Elliott argues that the duty to warn theory is based solely on negligence principles and does not arise from strict liability under § 402(A) of the Restatement (Second) of Torts. The plaintiff George W. Florom (Florom) pled and relies upon both negligence and strict liability theories. The…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Hiigel v. General Motors CorporationSupreme Court of Colorado · 1976
- Raymond Leannais and Catherine Leannais v. Cincinnati, Incorporated and Cincinnati-Forte Company and Liberty Mutual Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1977
- Union Supply Co. v. PustSupreme Court of Colorado · 1978
- Hamilton v. HardyColorado Court of Appeals · 1976
- Anderson v. Heron Engineering Co.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1979
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Parker v. Western Dakota Insurors, Inc.South Dakota Supreme Court · 2000
- TRACEY BY TRACEY v. Winchester Repeating Arms Co.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1990
- prod.liab.rep. (Cch) P 13,915 Clark Equipment Company v. The Dial CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1994
- United States v. Sterling Centrecorp Inc.District Court, E.D. California · 2013
- Girard v. Allis Chalmers Corp., Inc.District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1992
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.