So thinks a Michigan appeals court, reinstating (over a dissent) a suit against a maker of a muffler repair kit which allegedly should have warned of the danger of carbon monoxide emitted by the car under repair. [Pero, White v. Victor majority and dissent (PDF)] (& welcome Daniel Fisher, Forbes readers)
Chronicling the high cost of our legal system
Cato Institute
Individual liberty, free markets, and peace: the world's premier libertarian think tank. Publishes Cato at Liberty, where I blog on contemporary policy issues.
Schools for Misrule
Get your copy today! My new book tackles the question of why so many bad ideas come from the law schools. "Cutting-edge commentary, hard-hitting, witty, astute." -- Publisher's Weekly. "Excellent... A fine dissection of these strangely powerful institutions" -- Wall Street Journal.
{ 2 trackbacks }
{ 2 comments }
That is not what the court is saying. The court agrees that reasonable fact-finder may ultimately conclude that defendants are correct that a reasonably prudent person would know that car exhaust contains carbon monoxide that could cause injury. Defendant provided no evidence to support the remedy it sought. It STILL may win on a motion for summary judgment. Just not now with no evidence.
Up next: summary judgment inappropriate because defendant failed to present evidence that the sky is blue.
Comments on this entry are closed.