Hininger v. Case Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that, where all potentially applicable states’ laws do not differ in material respect, the claimed conflict is a “false conflict”
• finding that a plaintiff could not recover economic losses from a component manufacturer for damage to finished product caused by defective component
• applying Texas law and holding that economic-loss rule barred negligence claim of purchaser of combine against manufacturer of replacement wheels, with whom plaintiff had no privity of contract, where only injury was to wheels themselves
• denying recovery in tort of profits lost when tractor wheels broke
• recovery denied [36] See Restatement, T.D. 1, § 3. for lost business due to negligently designed combine
• “[W]e believe that the Texas Supreme Court would distinguish between the manufacturer of the finished product and the component supplier because of the component supplier’s inability to disclaim its warranty liability effectively.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).