Annamarie Lamontagne, Doreen A. Festa and Susan B. Pregler v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Company, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that the CPLA does not “alter the substance of a plaintiff’s rights or the facts that a plaintiff must prove in order to prevail.”
• noting that the CPLA does not “alter the substance of a plaintiff’s rights or the facts that a plaintiff must prove in order to prevail.”
• stating that the requirements applicable to ordinary negligence actions “are also applicable to negligence claims against product manufacturers” under the CPLA
• stating that “[a]lthough the CPLA introduced simplified pleading ... it apparently was not meant to alter the substance of a plaintiffs rights or the facts that a plaintiff must prove in order to prevail”
• because act does not delineate elements of claims that it consolidates, common law provides basis for theories of recovery
• duty depends on foresee ability of danger

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).