Werner v. Shoshone Coca-Cola Bottling Co.
This text of 535 P.2d 161 (Werner v. Shoshone Coca-Cola Bottling Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Nevada Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
OPINION
The appellant’s contention on appeal is that proof of actual damages is not an essential part of a plaintiff’s case under the doctrine of strict liability in tort in the area of products liability. The appeallant fails to cite any authority for this claimed error and as such this court need not consider it. Bradshaw v. General Electric Co., 91 Nev. 124, 531 P.2d 1358 (1975); General Electric Co. v. Bush, 88 Nev. 360, 498 P.2d 366 *287 (1972). Further, such a contention is without merit for actual injury must be shown to recover on a theory of strict liability in tort and mere nominal' damages to vindicate a technical right are insufficient. Ginnis v. Mapes Hotel Corp., 86 Nev. 408, 470 P.2d 135 (1970); Shoshone Coca-Cola v. Dolinski, 82 Nev. 439, 420 P.2d 855 (1966).
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
535 P.2d 161, 91 Nev. 286, 1975 Nev. LEXIS 610, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/werner-v-shoshone-coca-cola-bottling-co-nev-1975.