|
2253 REVIEW DENIED Products liability should not be imposed on a successor to a product provider unless the successor's acquisition of the provider's interest destroyed any viable remedy plaintiff would have had against the provider, and the successor was able to assume the provider's risk-spreading role, and responsibility for defective products was a burden necessarily attached to the provider's good will enjoyed by the successor in the continued operation of the business.CitationCHAKNOVA v WILBUR-ELLIS (Asbestos Successor) 69 CA4 962 [See: Ortiz v South Bend 46 CA3 842; Ray v Alad 19 C3 22; Rosales v Thermex-Thermatron 67 CA4 187]
|
|
