§
Subdivision 1.Expiration as defense.
In any action for the recovery of damages for personal injury, death or property damage arising out of the manufacture, sale, use or consumption of a product, it is a defense to a claim against a designer, manufacturer, distributor or seller of the product or a part thereof, that the injury was sustained following the expiration of the ordinary useful life of the product.
§
Subd. 2.Determination.
The useful life of a product is not necessarily the life inherent in the product, but is the period during which with reasonable safety the product should be useful to the user. This period shall be determined by reference to the experience of users of similar products, taking into account present conditions and past developments, including but not limited to (1) wear and tear or deterioration from natural causes, (2) the progress of the art, economic changes, inventions and developments within the industry, (3) the climatic and other local conditions peculiar to the user, (4) the policy of the user and similar users as to repairs, renewals and replacements, (5) the useful life as stated by the designer, manufacturer, distributor, or seller of the product in brochures or pamphlets furnished with the product or in a notice attached to the product, and (6) any modification of the product by the user.
Notes of Decisions
Hodder v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 426 N.W.2d 826 (Minn. 1988).
· cites it 32× “Minn.Stat. § 604.03, subd. 1 (1986), provides that in a products liability action, "it *830 is a defense to a claim against a designer, manufacturer, distributor or seller of the product or a part thereof, that the injury was sustained following the expiration of the ordinary…”
Hanson v. Williams Cnty., 389 N.W.2d 319 (N.D. 1986).
· cites it 2× “17 See also, Minn. Stat. § 604.03 (1976). 18 However, *343 the fact that the legislature might possibly have passed a statute that would have been less restrictive does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that there is not a close correspondence between the statutory…”
Nesladek v. Ford Motor Co., 876 F. Supp. 1061 (D. Minnesota 1994).
· cites it 2× “Under Minnesota law: [i]n any action for the recovery of damages for personal injury, death or property damage arising out of the manufacture, sale, use or consumption of a product, it is a defense to a claim against a designer, manufacturer, distributor or seller of the product…”
Montgomery v. Wyeth, 540 F. Supp. 2d 933 (E.D. Tenn. 2008).
“1988) (citing Minn.Stat. § 604.03). And in Connecticut, the useful life of a product only becomes relevant 10 years after the product is sold.”
Weston v. McWilliams & Assocs., Inc., 694 N.W.2d 558 (Minn. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 2× “1988) (reviewing "useful life” defense in products liability statute, Minn.Stat. § 604.03 (1986), and contrasting this with "typical” statute of repose)).”
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.