Court Opinion

ID: 9658065
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 20:45:50.179315+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:51.172926
License: Public Domain

MESCHKE, Justice,
concurring and dissenting.
I concur that a new trial is necessary because the trial court erred in instructing the jury on an alteration without regard to foreseeability. Hesitantly, I also agree that the trial court’s instruction on misuse was mistaken, and that the trial court improperly granted a directed verdict for Rust. However, I dissent from the conclusion that the trial court’s instructions improperly injected negligence concepts into the strict liability failure-to-wam claim.
The complications brought about by dual-theory cases like this one demonstrate that *256we should merge strict liability and negligence, as Justice Levine explained in her dissenting opinion to Butz v. Werner, 438 N.W.2d 509 (N.D.1989). I joined that opinion and I continue to subscribe to its thesis. Altogether, today’s majority opinion vividly illustrates the need to combine and simplify strict liability and negligence doctrine for submission to a jury.
DOUGLAS B. HEEN, Surrogate Judge, concurs.