This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Robbins (P) was a partner in a cattle feeding operation. In the fall of 1971, the operation purchased calves and started them on a feeding program which included Rum-Liq. This was a feed supplement manufactured by Farmers Union Grain Terminal Association (D) which contained a high level of urea. There was a warning posted stating that cattle coming into a feedlot should be given 10 days to adjust to the stress before starting them on a full feeding program. However, P started the feed treatment immediately, gradually increasing the dosage. Some of the cattle got sick and died. Two calves were examined in December 1971, and a high level of ammonia was found in their blood. Believing it to be the result of urea feeding, P stopped giving the cattle Rum-Liq. After the cessation, the rate of death and sickness among his cattle decreased rapidly. P sued D, claiming the failure to give sufficient warnings regarding safe use of the feed. P also claimed that D should have known that experts recommended a longer delay than 10 days before starting calves on a full feeding program. P wanted to introduce a letter of subsequent remedial warning by D to its sales personnel under strict liability to show an unreasonably dangerous product, and under a negligence theory to show the feasibility of issuing the subsequent warning earlier. D was found liable. D appealed, contesting the admission of the letter of subsequent remedial warning by the trial court.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.