stating that the economic loss doctrine will not bar a claim for products liability where the product at issue [defective car seats that collapse rearward in rear-impact collisions] creates a dangerous condition that “gives rise to a clear danger of death or personal injury.” (citation omitted)
How later courts described this case
- stating that the economic loss doctrine will not bar a claim for products liability where the product at issue [defective car seats that collapse rearward in rear-impact collisions] creates a dangerous condition that “gives rise to a clear danger of death or personal injury.” (citation omitted)
- holding that to assert a products liability theory, an action premised on economic loss alone must “allege facts that demonstrate that the product at issue creates a dangerous condition, one that gives rise to a clear danger of death or personal injury.”
- finding that a plaintiff must demonstrate that he or she “suffered an identifiable loss, measured by the amount the consumer spent or lost as a result of his or her reliance on the sellers’ misrepresentation”
- holding that the “risk of bodily harm or death” exception to the economic loss doctrine applied to fraudulent concealment claims related to allegedly defective seatbacks in automobiles
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ELDRIDGE, J.,
concurring:
I join both the judgment of the Court and the Court’s opinion. I note, however, that I continue to adhere to the *172 dissenting opinions in Morris v. Osmose, 340 Md. 519, 547-555 , 667 A.2d 624, 638-642 (1995) (Eldridge, J., joined by Bell and Raker, JJ., dissenting), and Citaramanis v. Hallowell, 328 Md. 142, 165-181 , 613 A.2d 964, 975-983 (1992) (Bell, J., joined by Eldridge, J., dissenting).