manufacturer of whirlpool bath was not covered by the statute of repose because the actions were only that of a supplier rather than a designer or installer
How later courts described this case
- manufacturer of whirlpool bath was not covered by the statute of repose because the actions were only that of a supplier rather than a designer or installer
- “‘Where an injury has already occurred for which the injured person has a right of action, the Legislature cannot deny him a remedy,’ ” quoting Shea v. North-Butte Mining Co., 55 Mont. 522, 533, 179 P. 499, 503
- whirlpool bath in field house was improvement
- whirlpool bath in college field house
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
MR. JUSTICE CASTLES
(concurring and dissenting in part).
I concur in the opinion of the majority except as it applies to the final issue concerning defendant, Ille Electric Co. The thrust of the complaint is against the installation of the whirlpool machine over which Ille Electric had no control. To hold that over 13 years after installation, and summary judgment for the other two defendants, Ille Electric remains liable under the statutes involved is not proper. I would affirm the judgments.