Court Opinion

ID: 9723755
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 10:30:05.724604+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:51.678940
License: Public Domain

Concurring Opinion
White, J.
Judge Hoffman’s opinion demonstrates, and Judges Sharp and Hoffman agree, that appellant has not made a prima facie case on the theory of strict liability as stated in 2 RESTATEMENT OF TORTS, 2d § 402A, at 347 (1964). I also agree. Appellant does not contend (nor do I *68believe that she could plausibly contend) that she made a prima facie case under any other theory of liability. Therefore, the trial court’s direction of a defendant’s verdict must be approved regardless of whether, or to what extent, the Restatement is a statement of the common law of Indiana. I see no reason for us to speculate herein on those questions. Our answers should come in a case in which they will be decisive.
I concur in affirming the judgment below for the sole reason that the appellant did not make a prima facie case under any theory of liability.
Note. — Reported in 258 N. E. 2d 652.