Opinion ID: 374080
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Improper instructions.

Text: 12 Chesebrough argues that Foster Forbes made a representation that the bottle was safe for its intended use, and that the following instruction to the jury precluded its consideration of that representation: 13 As to the contentions between Defendant, Chesebrough-Ponds, Inc., and Defendant, Foster Forbes Glass Company, if you find from a preponderance of the evidence that Chesebrough-Ponds assumed the sole responsibility for the entire design of the cologne bottle in question, then you are instructed that Foster Forbes cannot be held responsible for any defect in the bottle's design. 14 On the other hand, if you find from a preponderance of the evidence that Defendant, Foster Forbes Glass Company, participated in the bottle's design, then you are instructed that Foster Forbes can be held responsible for the design defect, if any, to which it contributed. 15 Contrary to Chesebrough's contention, we find that the instruction did permit the jury to consider any representations made by Foster Forbes concerning the safety or design of the bottle; in fact, the jury charge expressly invited such consideration by specifically focusing the attention of the jury on any possible participation by Foster Forbes in the bottle's design. It was only if the jury found that Chesebrough assumed the sole responsibility for the entire design of the cologne bottle (emphasis added), thus finding no participation by Foster Forbes, by representations or otherwise, that Foster Forbes could not be held responsible for any design defect. We find no merit in Chesebrough's assignment of error. 2 16