HomeMy WebLinkAbout0202 privity and the flction of implied warranty ought i
to be Iaid to rest uncerem~niously and supplanted
by tne concept of strict liab::lity in tori. "
I agree with the qcoted portion of the dissenting opinion of
]udge Mager in Mattes and dissent from the portion-of the majority opin-
ion which states Chat plaintlffs' theory as to strict liability should be
stricken. I would hold that oount one of plaintiffs' complaint stated a
valid claim for relief under the doctrine of strict liability in tort as well
as under the theory of implied warranty. .
~
> ;
~
~
; .
~
~
~
! ~
;
E i
P
~ i
[ '
t
i
t ~
1
F " i
S t
'r
s
4
:
i
i
{
i
0
• 3
~ ~
re
S
~ ~ ~
~ SIIGK~ ~q~{ ~
~
~
;
~
~
~ ~
~ ~ -
~ y , ~ - _ ~
. _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _