|
3905 REVIEW DENIED An above-ground pool liner is defective if it lacks a warning against diving; primary assumption of the risk does not prevent the supplier of an above-ground pool liner defective for lack of a warning against diving from being liable to a child injured by diving, but secondary assumption of the risk in the form of comparative negligence may reduce the child's recovery; lack of a warning against diving into a shallow above-ground pool was a proximate cause of an injury that resulted from diving into the pool.CitationBUNCH v HOFFINGER INDUSTRIES (Pool Liner) 123 CA4 1278 [See: Knight v Jewett 3 C4 296, T/AT 10/92; Milwaukee Electric v Superior Court 15 CA4 547, T/AT 7/93; Bjork v Mason 77 CA4 544, T/AT 2/00]
|
|
