Werner v. Shoshone Coca-Cola Bottling Co.

535 P.2d 161, 91 Nev. 286, 1975 Nev. LEXIS 610
Nevada Supreme Court·Decided May 13, 1975·No. 7702·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

OPINION

Per Curiam:

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

Werner v. Shoshone Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 535 P.2d 161, 91 Nev. 286, 1975 Nev. LEXIS 610 (Neb. 1975).

535 P.2d 161 (Werner v. Shoshone Coca-Cola Bottling Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Amerco v. Shoen
907 P.2d 536 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 1995)
Bennett v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland
652 P.2d 1178 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1982)
Cooper v. Pacific Automobile Insurance
603 P.2d 281 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1979)