Court Opinion

ID: 9559038
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 17:21:08.383231+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:09:43.895137
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Frantz
dissenting:
Zelinger sued Scientific Supply Co., Inc., for damages for personal injuries alleged to have resulted from the use of an insecticide produced and marketed by the defendant under the name, “Control 56.” The acts of negli*574gence charged were: (1) the failure of the defendant to warn of dangers inherent in exposure to the product; (2) labeling the product as non-in jurious to warm-blooded animals when in fact it could and did injure the plaintiff; and (3) that the product was mislabeled in violation of C.R.S. ’53, 6-12-1, et seq.
Two problems developed, both presenting questions of proof. It is claimed that there was a lack of proof of ingredients harmful to man in the insecticide that was used, and a lack of evidence connecting the ingredients with the defendant’s resulting injury.
There was evidence to support the findings and determination of the trial court. The fact that the evidence favorable to the defense seems much stronger to us should not induce us to reverse. The fact that the evidence favorable to the plaintiff’s cause appears to be rather inconclusive, although in quantity greater than a scintilla of evidence, satisfies the rule that this court will not reverse where there is present sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s disposition of the case.
For these reasons I must dissent.
I am authorized to state that Mr. Justice Moore joins in this dissenting opinion.