Opinion ID: 677522
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Duty to Retrofit

Text: 15 Appellant asserts that Caterpillar had a duty to retrofit the forklift with operator restraints. The District Court cited the Magistrate Judge's opinion in Estate of Kimmel v. Clark, 773 F.Supp. 828, 829-30 (W.D.Va.1991), wherein the Magistrate Judge specifically rejected a duty to retrofit claim against a forklift manufacturer which failed to retrofit its forklifts with restraints. The Magistrate Judge found that there is no duty to retrofit under Virginia law. Appellant has cited no Virginia law which expressly creates such a duty. This Court is not free to create a state law duty where the Virginia Courts or Legislature has not seen fit to do so. Therefore, appellant's duty to retrofit claim must fail. 16