United States Ninth Circuit

In a wrongful death action against the manufacturer of a propane heater, judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) there was no post-sale duty to warn of a danger already accounted for; and 2) the district court did not err in excluding the results of several tests performed by defendant on its indoor "camping" heater, as well as evidence of an earlier warning campaign associated with the same heater, because plaintiff was permitted to present substantially equivalent evidence.

Appellate Information

• Decided 03/26/2010
• Published 03/26/2010

Judges

Court

• United States Ninth Circuit

Counsel