Kennedy v. Mobay Corp., 152
| Decision Date | 01 September 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 152,152 |
| Citation | 325 Md. 385,601 A.2d 123 |
| Parties | , Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 13,062 Marlene Cohen KENNEDY et al. v. MOBAY CORPORATION et al. , |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Certiorari to Court of Special Appeals (Circuit Court for Cecil County), Donaldson C. Cole, Jr., Judge.
Wendy Fleishman (Fox, Rothschild, O'Brien & Frankel, Philadelphia, Pa., Bertram Goldstein, Goldstein Hood & Associates, Baltimore, all on brief), for petitioners.
Willis A. Siegfried (Dennis R. McEwen, Eckert, Seamans, Cherin & Mellott, Pittsburgh, Pa., all on brief), Clifford J. Zatz (David C. Allen, Ann H. Jameson, Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, Washington, D.C., all on brief), for respondents.
James E. Gray, Linda S. Woolf, Goodell, DeVries, Leech & Gray, Baltimore, amicus curiae, for BASF Corp. and Eastman Kodak Co.
Argued before MURPHY, C.J., and ELDRIDGE, RODOWSKY, McAULIFFE, CHASANOW and ROBERT M. BELL, JJ.
We granted certiorari to consider whether the Petitioners are entitled to a new trial (1) because the defense of sophisticated user should not have been presented in a strict liability case; (2) because the sophisticated user defense was impermissible under the facts of the case; and (3) because the jury instruction and reinstruction regarding the sophisticated user defense may have misled the jury.
After careful consideration of these issues, for reasons stated in the opinion of Chief Judge Wilner for the Court of Special Appeals in Kennedy v. Mobay, 84 Md.App. 397, 579 A.2d 1191 (1990), the judgment is affirmed.
JUDGMENTS AFFIRMED, WITH COSTS.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wankel v. A & B CONTRACTORS
...various motions to dismiss Horton's cross-appeal. See Kennedy v. Mobay Corp., 84 Md.App. 397, 431, 579 A.2d 1191, aff'd, 325 Md. 385, 601 A.2d 123 (1992)(declining to reach "defensive cross-appeals" when this Court affirmed judgments entered in favor of defendants in a tort action); see als......
-
Mack v. Gen. Elec. Co.
...that defense may only be raised in context of negligent failure to warn claims); O'Neal, 10 F.3d at 251 (citing Kennedy v. Mobay Corp., 325 Md. 385, 601 A.2d 123 (Md.1992), aff'g84 Md.App. 397, 579 A.2d 1191 (Md.App.1990)) (holding defense applicable to both types of claims); Johnson, 43 Ca......
-
Goren v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co.
...their strikes. In support of their contentions, appellees rely on Kennedy v. Mobay, 84 Md.App. 397, 579 A.2d 1191 (1990), aff'd, 325 Md. 385, 601 A.2d 123 (1992). There, in a pre-trial proceeding, the trial court granted four additional peremptory strikes to one defendant, after finding it ......
-
Murphy v. Edmonds
... ... 87, 376 S.E.2d 525 (1989); and Franklin v. Mazda Motor Corp., 704 F.Supp. 1325 (D.Md.1989) ... In light of its ... ...
-
Renewed look at the duty to warn and affirmative defenses.
...36-37 (La.App. 1993). (61.) 833 P.2d 284 (Okla. 1992). (62.) Id. at 287 (emphasis in original). (63.) 579 A.2d 1191 (Md.App. 1990), aff'd, 601 A.2d 123 (Md. 1992). (64.) Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 952 F.2d 841, 850 (5th Cir. 1992). (65.) Id. at 851. See also Veil v. Vitek Inc., 803 F.Supp.......