Kennedy v. Mobay Corp.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Kennedy v. Mobay Corp.

601 A.2d 123, 325 Md. 385, 1992 Md. LEXIS 19

Court of Appeals of Maryland·Decided February 11, 1992·No. 152, September Term, 1990·Published·Cited by 18 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We granted certiorari to consider whether the Petitioners are entitled to a new trial (1) because the defense of sophisticated user should not have been presented in a strict liability case; (2) because the sophisticated user defense was impermissible under the facts of the case; and (3) because the jury instruction and reinstruction regarding the sophisticated user defense may have misled the jury.

After careful consideration of these issues, for reasons stated in the opinion of Chief Judge Wilner for the Court of Special Appeals in Kennedy v. Mobay, 84 Md.App. 397, 579 A.2d 1191 (1990), the judgment is affirmed.

JUDGMENTS AFFIRMED, WITH COSTS.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

We granted certiorari to consider whether the Petitioners are entitled to a new trial (1) because the defense of sophisticated user should not have been presented in a strict liability case; (2) because the sophisticated user defense was impermissible under the facts of the case; and (3) because the jury instruction and reinstruction regarding the sophisticated user defense may have misled the jury.

After careful consideration of these issues, for reasons stated in the opinion of Chief Judge Wilner for the Court of Special Appeals in Kennedy v. Mobay, 84 Md.App. 397, 579 A.2d 1191 (1990), the judgment is affirmed.

JUDGMENTS AFFIRMED, WITH COSTS.

Kennedy v. Mobay Corp., 601 A.2d 123, 325 Md. 385, 1992 Md. LEXIS 19 (Md. 1992).

Pincite

601 A.2d 123 (Kennedy v. Mobay Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related