Court Opinion

ID: 9685941
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 15:10:11.772504+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:11.709473
License: Public Domain

Krivosha, C. J.,
concurring.
I concur in the result reached by the court in this matter. Likewise, I concur in the rule announced by this court to the effect that a manufacturer is not liable for injuries to a user of a product which it has manufactured in accordance with plans and specifications of one other than the manufacturer, except when the plans are so obviously, patently, or glaringly dangerous that a manufacturer exercising ordinary care under the circumstances then existing would not follow them. I disagree, however, with the majority when it concludes that the trial court should have directed a verdict in this case.' In my view, there was sufficient evidence introduced to create a question of fact as to whether or not the manufacturer should have recognized the danger. I would have decided the instant case on the basis that whether the plans were so obviously, patently, or glaringly dangerous that a manufacturer exercising ordinary care under the circumstances then existing would not follow them was a question of fact, and the jury having found in favor of the manufacturer and against the plaintiff, the judgment should be af*302firmed. See Shields v. County of Buffalo, 161 Neb. 34, 71 N. W. 2d 701; Davis v. Dennert, 162 Neb. 65, 75 N. W. 2d 112; Hickman v. Parks Construction Co., 162 Neb. 461, 76 N. W. 2d 403.