Featherall v. Firestone

1 Citing brief

  1. Steve Chambers et al v. Whirlpool Corporation et al

    MEMORANDUM in Opposition to MOTION to Dismiss Case

    Filed July 8, 2013

    ”40 And as Defendants concede that the FAC alleges that by 2008 widespread information about the Defect was extant, MTD 16-17, they should have known of the Defect then.41 Defendants should be held liable for failure to warn regardless of pre-sale knowledge.42 1990) (finding no duty warn where plaintiff offered no specific evidence disputing the defendants’ argument that the explosion was caused by plaintiff’s misuse of the hose and did not rebut defendant’s expert testimony that the hose was not defective or unreasonably dangerous); Featherall v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 219 Va. 949, 962-64 (1979) (finding no evidence that the lid was dangerous or defective when it left the manufacturer’s hands; the evidence indicated that the components of the tank system were mismatched (a lid manufactured by one company was being used with a tank built by a different company), and misuse of the lid could not have been “foreseen or reasonably anticipated” by the manufacturer, id. at 964); Salerno v. Innovative Surveillance Tech., Inc., 402 Ill. App. 3d 490, 499- 500 (2010) (finding that the plaintiff waived his failure to warn claims where he acknowledged that there was no evidence demonstrating any alleged design defects and, conceding that the design of the van was not the problem, abandoned his claim for defective design). Salerno, in fact, supports Plaintiffs’ position as it recognizes that “[a] manufacturer has a duty to warn where the product possesses dangerous propensities and there is unequal knowledge with respect to the risk of harm, and the manufacturer, possessed of su