Court Opinion

ID: 9730420
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 15:11:51.393248+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:06.334086
License: Public Domain

*403SPAETH, J.,
concurs as to the liability of appellants Kauffman, Beller, and Stein, but dissents (1) as to the liability of appellant Albert Einstein Medical Center, on the grounds (a) that there was no basis for a finding of agency as between AEMC and Kauffman, and (b) that the charge on strict liability was error, because strict liability was not pleaded; (2) as to the liability of appellant Stryker, on the ground that there was not sufficient evidence of a defect. In addition, I have examined the arguments made by various of the appellants as to their right to indemnification (not discussed by the majority), and have concluded that the lower court was correct in declining to mold the verdict.