discussing that the court's discretion in determining whether to apply stare decisis in a given matter "must be exercised with a view to whether adherence to past error or departure from precedent constitutes the greater evil to be suffered"
How later courts described this case
- discussing that the court's discretion in determining whether to apply stare decisis in a given matter "must be exercised with a view to whether adherence to past error or departure from precedent constitutes the greater evil to be suffered"
- noting that tort obligations and contractual obligations “create separate and distinct predicates of liability”
- “Courts properly seek to create a framework of continuity amidst a universe of continuous change in order that those citizens and litigants who rely upon the legal doctrines and principles they announce may conduct their day-to-day affairs without fear that their reasonable expectations will be torn asunder by an unforeseen and radical departure from precedent.”
- proof of a defective or unreasonably dangerous product is sufficient
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
McKUSICK, Chief Justice,
dissenting.
I would affirm the judgment of the Superior Court on the authority of Burke v. Hamilton Beach Division, Me., 424 A.2d 145 (1981), and Hurd v. Hurd, Me., 423 A.2d 960 (1981).