Vantage, Inc. v. Carrier Corp. , 1991 N.D. LEXIS 50 ( 1991 )

ERICKSTAD, Chief Justice,

dissenting in part and concurring in the result.

I respectfully dissent to that part of the majority opinion which holds that section 28-01.1-02, N.D.C.C., did not bar the plaintiffs’ action against Carrier. I do so based upon the reasons stated in my dissent in Hanson v. Williams County, 389 N.W.2d 319, beginning at 330 (N.D.1986).

Furthermore, I believe this case is, on its facts, distinguishable on the basis that Hanson involved a claim for damages for loss of life and this case involves a claim for damages for loss of property.

Notwithstanding, I concur in the result of the majority opinion in this case on the basis of the trial court’s findings relative to section 28-01.1-02(3), N.D.C.C. which provides an exception to the statute of repose if the manufacturer “modifies a product, or becomes aware of any defect in a product at any time, and fails to notify or warn a user of the product who is subsequently injured or damaged as a result of the defect.”