Court Opinion

ID: 9756943
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 22:10:38.763426+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:33.630278
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing: After the foregoing opinion was filed, plaintiff filed a motion for rehearing.
Grimes, J.
The opinion dated January 31, 1976, is modified by striking out the paragraph on page 54 beginning with the words, “The test for determining...”, and substituting the following: Plaintiffs contend that this was error and that the test should be whether they were dangerous to an extent beyond that which would be contemplated by the ordinary five-year-old child. But five-year-old children lack the legal capacity to contemplate danger which may be inherent in any cotton fabric. To judge the standard of “unreasonably dangerous” in terms of a five-year-old child would make any product manufactured for such a child from which injury results, unreasonably dangerous as a matter of law. Elliott v. LaChance, 109 N.H. 481, 256 A.2d 153 (1969); W. Prosser, Torts § 79, at 517 (4th ed. 1971); Annot., 13 A.L.R.3d 1057, 1066 (1967); Note, Strict Products Liability in Tort and the Meaning of Unreasonably Dangerous Defects, 8 Urban L. Ann. 343, 349 (1974).

Opinion modified.

February 27, 1976.