Carter v. BRIGHTON FORD, INC.

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that because “the concepts of warranty and product liability dealt with two separate theories of harm[,]” Colorado’s passive retailer immunity act did not apply to warranty claims
• rejecting the Loughridge court’s holding that warranty claims — claims in which the product damaged only itself — constitute “property damage” within the meaning of Colorado’s product liability statutes

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).