plaintiff is not required to exclude “an appreciable chance” that the event might have occurred in some other way—a causal connection may be inferred from a “balance of probabilities.”
How later courts described this case
- plaintiff is not required to exclude “an appreciable chance” that the event might have occurred in some other way—a causal connection may be inferred from a “balance of probabilities.”
- if anticipated change causes product failure defective product is established
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
SAM D. JOHNSON, Justice
(concurring).
While concurring in the result reached by the majority, different reasoning for so doing dictates this opinion. The conclusive evidence in the instant record is that there was no internal tampering or work done on the encased or enclosed braking *138 unit in question. Further, if there was an unproven attempt to adjust the brakes, it is clear that such an attempt would not have caused the displacement of the type of damage observed in the internal parts of the encased or enclosed unit. Under such circumstances the reasoning used by the Supreme Court in McKisson v. Sales Affiliates, Inc., 416 S.W.2d 787 (Tex.Sup.), to a sealed container should be applicable to an encased or enclosed mechanical unit, and should carry the same inferences. See Markel v. Spencer, 5 A.D.2d 400 , 171 N.Y. S.2d 770 (1958), affirmed without opinion, 5 N.Y.2d 958 , 184 N.Y.S.2d 835 , 157 N.E.2d 713 (1959); Guagliardo v. Ford Motor Co., 7 A.D.2d 472 , 184 N.Y.S.2d 1012 (1929).
The Supreme Court cites with favor the American Law Institutes Restatement of the Law of Torts (2d Ed.) in adopting the doctrine of strict liability for this jurisdiction. McKisson v. Sales Affiliates, Inc., supra. The reasoning suggested in this concurring opinion is to give full effect to the doctrine.