finding manufacturer of replacement pool liners, which had "but one purpose," liable for failure to warn, because liners' lack of depth markers made them defective when integrated into pool
Summary of this case from Nemirovsky v. Daikin N. Am.No. 92-1312.
March 29, 1993.
C.A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 972 F. 2d 805.
finding manufacturer of replacement pool liners, which had "but one purpose," liable for failure to warn, because liners' lack of depth markers made them defective when integrated into pool
Summary of this case from Nemirovsky v. Daikin N. Am.finding manufacturer of replacement pool liners, which had "but one purpose," liable for failure to warn, because liners’ lack of depth markers made them defective when integrated into pool
Summary of this case from Nemirovsky v. Daikin N. Am., LLCswimming pool liner with no depth markers
Summary of this case from Warren v. Shelter Mut. Ins. Co.Full title:LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE CO. ET AL. v. ELJER MANUFACTURING, INC., FKA…
Court:U.S.
Date published: Mar 29, 1993
Over a strong dissent, the Seventh Circuit reversed the district judge, holding that under Illinois law the…
Soria v. StateCourts have viewed Buchanan as recognizing that a defendant "waives" his Fifth Amendment rights to a limited…