Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): 91 Hawai'i 81, 86, 979 P.2d 1107, 1112 (1999). In Stewart v. Budget Rentr-A-Car Corp., 52 Haw. 71, 470 P.2d 240 (1970), this court first articulated the rule of strict products liability, to the effect that one who sells or leases a defective product which is dangerous to the user or consumer or to his property is subject to liability for physical harm caused by the defective product to the ult cases alleging design, as opposed to manufacturing, defects “since obviously the design of the product does not change from the date of its original manufacture, absent some modification in design.” Rix v. General Motors Corp., 222 Mont. 318, 723 P.2d 195, 199 (1986) (citation omitted). See also Bradford v. Bendix-Westinghouse Auto. Air Brake Co., 33 Colo.App. 99, 517 P.2d 406, 413 (1973) (<HOLDING>). As explained in L. Frumer & M. Freeman, 1 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that acts of improper maintenance were insufficient to defeat plaintiffs defective design claim (B) holding with respect to class iii device not subject to pma process that negligent marketing and inadequate warning claims were preempted but defective design claim was not preempted because no fda design requirement existed (C) holding the mda did not preempt plaintiffs state common law claims for defective design defective manufacture and failure to warn (D) holding that plaintiffs negligence defective manufacturing defective design breach of warranty and failure to warn claims were preempted by the mda and fdca defined below (E) holding that plaintiffs did not need to identify the specific defective lawn mower to sustain their claim of a design defect
Output (English): holding with respect to class iii device not subject to pma process that negligent marketing and inadequate warning claims were preempted but defective design claim was not preempted because no fda design requirement existed