Werner v. Shoshone Coca-Cola Bottling Co.
Cases that cite this one
3 later published cases cite this decision.
- Amerco v. Shoen (Ariz. Ct. App. 1995)
- Bennett v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland (Nev. 1982)
- Cooper v. Pacific Automobile Insurance (Nev. 1979)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
OPINION
The appellant’s contention on appeal is that proof of actual damages is not an essential part of a plaintiff’s case under the doctrine of strict liability in tort in the area of products liability. The appeallant fails to cite any authority for this claimed error and as such this court need not consider it. Bradshaw v. General Electric Co., 91 Nev. 124, 531 P.2d 1358 (1975); General Electric Co. v. Bush, 88 Nev. 360, 498 P.2d 366 *287 (1972). Further, such a contention is without merit for actual injury must be shown to recover on a theory of strict liability in tort and mere nominal' damages to vindicate a technical right are insufficient. Ginnis v. Mapes Hotel Corp., 86 Nev. 408, 470 P.2d 135 (1970); Shoshone Coca-Cola v. Dolinski, 82 Nev. 439, 420 P.2d 855 (1966).
Affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.