Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 31 JULY 2012

"Glorvigen v. Cirrus Design Corp.": Duty To Warn Does Not Require Duty To Train Users

Morrison Foerster
Morrison Foerster
Contributor
Morrison Foerster

Morrison Foerster

With approximately 1,000 lawyers in 19 offices, Morrison & Foerster is a preeminent global law firm...

View firm profile
Explore more from Morrison Foerster

In a recent ruling, the Minnesota Supreme Court held that manufacturers and suppliers have a duty to warn foreseeable users of dangers inherent in the product.

United StatesConsumer Protection

In a recent ruling, the Minnesota Supreme Court held that, under Minnesota negligence law, manufacturers and suppliers have a duty to warn foreseeable users of dangers inherent in the product, and that this duty includes a duty to give adequate instructions on the safe use of the product. However, the Minnesota Supreme Court specifically declined to extend this duty to require suppliers or manufacturers to train users in the safe use of their product.

Glorvigen v. Cirrus Design Corporation, -- N.W.2d -- (2012), 2012 WL 2913203, decided on July 18, 2012, arises out of the crash of a Cirrus SR22 airplane in January 2003, which killed both men on board and destroyed the hull. Combined lawsuits brought by the estates of both decedents against Cirrus, as the manufacturer and seller, alleged breach of the duty to warn and to provide adequate instructions for the safe use of its airplanes. The pilot and owner of the accident aircraft purchased the SR22 just one month before

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from