Hammond v. North American Asbestos Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• rejecting the defendant’s argument that it was not a seller contemplated by section 402A where the defendant maintained that it only acted as a broker by merely facilitating and servicing its parent corporation’s contracts and never had control of the product
• the role of the defendant, an agent/broker, in “marketing” the asbestos which caused plaintiff’s injuries
• “Imposition of liability upon these parties is justified on the ground that their position in the marketing process enables them to exert pressure on the manufacturer to enhance the safety of the product”
• “Regardless of the nature of the commercial transaction and even though he does not create the defect, a seller who puts a defective product into the stream of commerce may still be held strictly liable to an injured user”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).