Summary
finding persons who maintained production equipment could not be liable to worker injured by equipment on a warranty theory because they were not sellers of the equipment
Summary of this case from McCormick v. GMBHOpinion
1994
From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research
Petitions for Discretionary Review
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jan 1, 1994
338 N.C. 518 (N.C. 1994)
Summaries of
Petitions for Discretionary Review
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jan 1, 1994
338 N.C. 518 (N.C. 1994)
finding persons who maintained production equipment could not be liable to worker injured by equipment on a warranty theory because they were not sellers of the equipment
Summary of this case from McCormick v. GMBHCase details for
Petitions for Discretionary Review
Case Details
Full title:PETITIONS FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
Court:Supreme Court of North Carolina
Date published: Jan 1, 1994
Citations
338 N.C. 518 (N.C. 1994)
Citing Cases
McCormick v. GMBH
Accordingly, DUSA cannot be held liable on a breach of warranty theory. See McCorkle v. Aeroglide Corp., 115…
Beneficial Mortgage Co. v. PetersonAlthough this Court has held that omission of the effective date of the lien from the judgment should not bar…