Dippel, Plaintiff and Appellant v. Sciano and Wife, D/B/A Tony & Dottie’s Tavern and Others, Defendants : Pioneer…

Summary

The court held that lack of privity does not bar an injured user's tort claim against a seller of a defective, unreasonably dangerous product. It adopted strict liability in tort for qualifying products-liability claims, while explaining that the rule does not impose absolute liability and remains subject to causation and other defenses. The court affirmed dismissal of the complaint's implied-warranty count because the claim was pleaded under the wrong theory, but granted leave to amend. Chief Judge Currie and Justice Hallows concurred; Justice Hallows would characterize the seller's liability as negligence as a matter of law rather than strict liability.