DIXON v. JACOBSEN MFG. CO.


270 N.J. Super. 569 (1994)

637 A.2d 915

KENNETH DIXON, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. JACOBSEN MANUFACTURING COMPANY, JACOBSEN DIVISION OF TEXTRON, INC., HOMELITE DIVISION OF TEXTRON, INC., TEXTRON, INC., JOHN DOE AND XYZ CORPORATION, SAID NAMES BEING FICTITIOUS, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS, v. RICHARD P. DIXON AND NANCY J. DIXON, THIRD PARTY DEFENDANTS.

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.

Decided February 2, 1994.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Jeffrey R. Youngman argued the cause for appellant (Karas, Kilstein, Hirschklau, Feitlin, Kopf & Baime, attorneys).

Dana C. Argeris argued the cause for respondent (Carton, Witt, Arvanitis & Bariscillo, attorneys).

Before Judges STERN, KEEFE and BILDER.


The opinion of the court was delivered by KEEFE, J.A.D.

The primary issue presented on this appeal is whether a manufacturer, who knows the identity of the current owner of a consumer product it manufactured several years earlier, has a duty upon inquiry to provide the current owner with more specific and clearer instructions adopted by it after the date of manufacture concerning safe use of the product. We conclude under the facts of this case that such a duty exists...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases