Kolarik v. Cory International Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a remote buyer who chipped a tooth on an insufficiently pitted olive “falls within [Section 554.2318’s] class of extended beneficiaries”
• stating that, for express warranty claim, remote buyers are not required to give notice to seller
• noting olives were “products” for purposes of products liability and nevertheless allowing plaintiff to proceed on general negligence claim for failure to warn
• noting olives were “products” for purposes of products liability and nevertheless allowing plaintiff to proceed on general negligence claim for failure to warn
• “In ruling on a summary judgment motion, the court must look at the facts in a light most favorable to the party resisting the motion.” (citation omitted)
• even if defendant who bought pitted olives in bulk and repackaged into smaller containers was “assembler,” immunity statute applied to strict-liability manufacturing-defect claim, because defendant’s repackaging “did not contribute” to the defect of a pit being in the olives

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).