In re Thompson v. Reinco, Inc.

5 Citing cases

  1. Guinan v. A.I. Dupont Hosp. for Children

    597 F. Supp. 2d 485 (E.D. Pa. 2009)   Cited 17 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding Delaware law requires that the plaintiff's medical expert must opine that the defendant's deviation from the standard of care was the "but for" cause of the plaintiff's injury

    "); Middlesex Mut. Assur. Co. v. Del. Elec. Signal Co., No. 07C-12-005, 2008 WL 4216145, at *5 (Del.Super.Ct. Sept. 11, 2008) (noting same); Gunzl v. CJ Pony Parts, No. 07C-10-169, 2008 WL 755272, at *2 n. 10 (Del.Super.Ct. Mar. 20, 2008) ("Under Delaware law, a claim of strict liability based on sales is governed by the [UCC] and not by tort law. Thus, [the plaintiff] can only recover damages for a breach of an implied or express warranty where there is privity between the parties, notice is established, and the applicable statute of limitations has not run."); Thompson v. Reinco, Inc., No. 01C-04-076, 2004 WL 1426971, at *1 n. 1 (Del.Super.Ct. Jun. 15, 2004) (noting that "the doctrine of strict liability is preempted in Delaware by the [UCC] in sales cases"); Smith v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., No. 94C-12-002, 2002 WL 31814534, at *2 (Del.Super.Ct. Nov. 20, 2002) ("In Delaware, the doctrine of strict liability has been preempted by the UCC in sales cases, which Plaintiff concedes."); Evans v. FMC Corp., No. 89C-AU27, 1991 WL 165901, at *1 (Del.Super.Ct. 1991) (noting that "the theory of strict products liability is not available in Delaware as a basis for recovery when the sale is governed by the UCC"). Plaintiff contends that Cline and its progeny do not apply to bar strict liability claims where the allegedly defective product is "abnormally dangerous" and presents "a high degree of harm."

  2. Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc. v. Arteaga

    113 A.3d 1045 (Del. 2015)   Cited 49 times
    Analyzing whether the location of a plane crash as the place of injury was "fortuitous" and concluding that it was not because the victims "lived and worked" in Mexico, where the crash occurred

    ”) (emphasis added); Bruce L. Hay, Conflicts of Law and State Competition in the Product Liability System, 80 Geo.L.J. 617, 652 (1992) (noting that a “state could hope to increase sales (and sales taxes) in its jurisdiction by making its laws more pro-defendant”).Thompson v. Reinco, Inc., 2004 WL 1426971, at *1 (Del.Super. June 15, 2004) (quoting Rasmussen v. Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Co., 1995 WL 945556, at *2 (Del.Super.Aug. 18, 1995) ). See also 63B Am.Jur.2d Products Liability § 1397 (2015) (“It has been held that the place of manufacture of an allegedly defective product is a relatively unimportant factor in determining choice of law under the most-significant-relationship test in a products liability case.”

  3. Jackson v. Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations, LLC

    C.A. No. N14C-09-241 CEB (Del. Super. Ct. Nov. 24, 2015)   Cited 2 times
    Engaging in a Delaware choice of law analysis to determine whether Michigan or Delaware law should apply

    In reversing the trial court, our Supreme Court held that "the trend has been instead to look to the place where the injury-causing product was used, as the Superior Court itself has noted previously: 'Modern choice of law considerations suggest that the jurisdiction where the product is marketed has a greater interest than a jurisdiction where a product is manufactured, developed or tested.'"Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., 113 A.3d at 1055 (quoting Thompson v. Reinco, Inc., 2004 WL 1426971, at *1 (Del. Super. June 15, 2004)). The Court does not believe the Bell Helicopter decision was merely another in a line of cases interpreting standard Restatement language. Rather, at least as to "the place where the tortious conduct occurred," the Supreme Court's ruling is a marked shift away from the place of design and manufacture to the place of marketing and distribution.

  4. PALLANO v. THE AES CORPORATION

    C.A. Nos. N09C-11-021 JRJ Consolidated, N10C-04-054 JRJ (Del. Super. Ct. Jul. 15, 2011)   Cited 7 times
    In Pallano, a court-appointed expert analyzed various areas of Dominican law, including the civil code, penal code, and an environmental statute.

    Cervantes v. Bridgestone/Firestone North American Tire Company, LLC, 2008 Del. Super. LEXIS 283, at *6; citing, Rest. (2d) Confl. § 145, cmt. e at p. 419 (1971)Cervantes v. Bridgestone/Firestone 2008 Del. Super. LEXIS 283, at *7; citing, Thompson v. Reinco, Inc., 2004 WL 1426971 at *1 (Del. Super. Ct. 2004).Cervantes v. Bridgestone/Firestone North American Tire Company, LLC, 2008 Del. Super. LEXIS 283, at *7; quoting, Rest. (2d) § 6, cmt.

  5. CERVANTES v. BRIDGESTONE/FIRESTONE

    C.A. No. 07C-06-249 JRJ (Del. Super. Ct. Aug. 14, 2008)   Cited 3 times

    In light of the fortuitous nature of the place of injury, this factor is accorded less weight in the Restatement § 145 analysis, making the other factors more relevant to the choice of law determination.Thompson v. Reinco, Inc., 2004 WL 1426971 *1 (Del. Super. Ct. 2004)(Jurden, J.) (the place of injury was considered by the court to be fortuitous since the only connection to the site was that of a non-resident working in the state where the injury occurred.) Firestone Resp. to Pls.' 1st Interrogs. at No. 38, 29, Ford's Resp. to Pls.' 1st Interrogs. At No. 33.