Dye v. Caterpillar, Inc.
In this products liability action, Donald W. Dye and his wife, Valarie, (hereafter Dye) appeal from judgments of dismissal entered after the superior court sustained without leave to amend demurrers to their third and fourth amended complaints. Dye contends on appeal that the trial court erred by failing to accept as true the allegations of his complaints and by accepting the defendants representations that they bear no liability because they are merely manufacturers or suppliers of generic, multi-use products or of component parts. Dye also appeals from the trial courts order striking his complaint as to Caterpillar, Inc. The trial court struck the complaint after finding that Dyes third amended complaint improperly named Caterpillar Equipment Company as a defendant, rather than Caterpillar, Inc. Dye contends that this was error, because prior to striking his complaint, the trial court had already permitted him to correct the misnomer.
Court agree with Dye on both counts and accordingly reverse the judgments.
Comments on Dye v. Caterpillar, Inc.