The applicable rule of law for this case will be displayed here.

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

These three cases arise out of claims asserted against D of an allegedly defective product. The theory of liability is under strict products liability. D marketed a centrifuge extractor for use in apartment house laundry rooms and commercial laundromats to spin water out of laundry after washing and preparatory to its being placed in a dryer. In Victorson (P), the extractor was sold in 1948, and the injury occurred in 1969; in Rivera (P), the sale was in 1959, the injury in 1967; and in Brown (D), the sale was in 1955, and the injury in 1965. All the courts ruled against D, and D appealed. The Appellate Division affirmed all three cases, holding that the date of the injury was when the limitations period ran. D appealed. D argues that the claims were barred by the statute of limitations for contracts, claiming that it would be unfair to hold D responsible for a product defect that manifested itself many years after the products had been manufactured and sold.

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.