Case ID: nev_91/html/0286-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam:\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

DOROTHY E. M. WERNER, Appellant, v. SHOSHONE COCA-COLA BOTTLING COMPANY, Respondent.
    No. 7702
    May 13, 1975
    535 P.2d 161
    [Rehearing denied June 12, 1975]
    
      Charles E. Springer, Ltd., of Reno, for Appellant.
    
      Echeverría and Osborne, Chartered, of Reno, for Respondent.
   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 (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.