(a) A product seller shall not be liable for harm that would not have occurred but for the fact that his product was altered or modified by a third party unless: (1) The alteration or modification was in accordance with the instructions or specifications of the product seller; (2) the alteration or modification was made with the consent of the product seller; or (3) the alteration or modification was the result of conduct that reasonably should have been anticipated by the product seller.
(b) For the purposes of this section, alteration or modification includes changes in the design, formula, function or use of the product from that originally designed, tested or intended by the product seller.
(P.A. 79-483, S. 5.)
Cited. 187 C. 363; 192 C. 280; 200 C. 562; 203 C. 156; 204 C. 399. Sec. 52-572m et seq., product liability act, abrogated common law indemnification principles in this area. 205 C. 694. Cited. 207 C. 575; Id., 599; 210 C. 189; 212 C. 462; Id., 509; 213 C. 136; 216 C. 65; 226 C. 282; 229 C. 213; Id., 500; 233 C. 732; 236 C. 769. Court set forth respective parties' appropriate burden of proof; product liability law discussed. 241 C. 199. Modified consumer expectation test, recognized in 241 C. 199, is the primary strict product liability test; ordinary consumer expectation test is reserved for those limited cases in which product fails to meet consumer's legitimate, commonly accepted minimum safety expectations. 321 C. 172.
Cited. 1 CA 48; 3 CA 230; 8 CA 642; 16 CA 558; 30 CA 664; 31 CA 824; 36 CA 601; 39 CA 635; 41 CA 555; Id., 856; 46 CA 18; Id., 699.
Cited. 40 CS 120; 41 CS 179; 42 CS 153; 44 CS 510.
Notes of Decisions
Potter v. Chicago Pneumatic Tool Co., 694 A.2d 1319 (Conn. 1997).
· cites it 29× “*229 We begin with General Statutes § 52-572p, 20 which governs allegations of alteration or modification.”
Elliot v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 642 A.2d 709 (Conn. 1994).
· cites it 28× “; the dispositive issue is whether the defendant product seller was entitled to a jury instruction on the defense of alteration or modification predicated on misuse under General Statutes § 52-572p, in addition to an instruction on misuse under the common law.”
Barry v. Quality Steel Prods., Inc., 820 A.2d 258 (Conn. 2003).
· cites it 3× “General Statutes § 52-572o, entitled “[cjomparative responsibility,” and General Statutes § 52-572p, entitled “[^imitation of liability of product seller,” incorporate notions of apportionment of responsibility and damages and misuse of a product, respectively, and arguably may…”
Elliot v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 621 A.2d 1371 (Conn. App. Ct. 1993).
· cites it 12× “General Statutes § 52-572p defines alteration or modification as “changes in the design, formula, function or use of the product from that originally designed, tested or intended by the product seller” and provides in pertinent part that “[a] product seller shall not be liable…”
Vitanza v. Upjohn Co., 778 A.2d 829 (Conn. 2001).
· cites it 2× “2d 709 (1994) (“[s]ubstantiai differences between the product liability act and its vetoed predecessor provide additional evidence that the legislature’s omission of ‘claimant’ from General Statutes § 52-572p was intentional”); we conclude that in the present case, our analysis…”
Lynn v. Haybuster Mfg., Inc., 627 A.2d 1288 (Conn. 1993).
· cites it 2× “” General Statutes § 52-572p provides: “limitation of liability of product seller, (a) A product seller shall not be liable for harm that would not have occurred but for the fact that his product was altered or modified by a third party unless: (1) The alteration or modification…”
Lamontagne v. EI Du Pont De Nemours & Co., 834 F. Supp. 576 (D. Conn. 1993).
· cites it 3× “Absent such evidence, Du Pont cannot be held liable under CPLA § 52-572p for harm caused by the Proplast TMJ Im *591 plant.”
Allard v. Liberty Oil Equip. Co., 756 A.2d 237 (Conn. 2000).
· cites it 2× “” General Statutes § 52-572p provides: “Limitation of liability of product seller, (a) A product seller shall not be liable for harm that would not have occurred but for the fact that his product was altered or modified by a third party unless: (1) The alteration or modification…”
DeJesus v. Craftsman Mach. Co., 548 A.2d 736 (Conn. App. Ct. 1988).
· cites it 2× “General Statutes § 52-572p (a) provides that “[a] product seller shall not be liable for harm that would not have occurred but for the fact that his product was altered or modified by a third party •.”
Truglio v. Hayes Constr. Co., 785 A.2d 1153 (Conn. App. Ct. 2001).
“, supra, 230-31 (“[b]ecause § 52-572p adopted the language of § 110 of the draft act nearly verbatim, we look to the commentary to the draft act for guidance”).”
Worrell v. Sachs, 563 A.2d 1387 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1989).
· cites it 2× “Moreover, General Statutes § 52-5721 et seq. and analogous product statutes do apply to products which are susceptible to a change in character over time (e.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.