Court Opinion

ID: 9552416
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 19:10:19.64817+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:26:19.700746
License: Public Domain

ROVIRA, Justice,
specially concurring:
A basic issue not discussed in the majority opinion is whether the respondent was a user or consumer within the meaning of § 402A and therefore entitled to maintain an action based on strict liability.
The court of appeals in Frazier v. Kysor Industrial Corp., 43 Colo.App. 287, 607 P.2d 1296 (1979), held that a mover, such as respondent, was a consumer within the meaning of § 402A because he was a person who foreseeably might be injured along the path of delivery and therefore was entitled to maintain an action based on strict liability.
I agree with the majority that because we reverse on other grounds there is no need to address the “user or consumer” issue. However, in my opinion, the issue is very much alive, and the formulation by the court of appeals should be carefully considered and reviewed in light of the policy considerations inherent in the adoption of § 402A.