-
190 F.2d 910·
4th Cir.·
1951-08-10
·cited 93×
Summary judgments were improperly granted as substantial issues of fact existed regarding the manufacturer's negligence and the proximate cause of the accident. Third-party practice cannot be used to circumvent jurisdictional requirements.
-
190 F.2d 825·
3d Cir.·
1951-07-25
·cited 88×
The court held that there was sufficient evidence of negligence to support the jury's verdict and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in qualifying the expert witness or in denying a new trial based on the verdict amount.
-
239 So. 2d 40·
Fla. 1st DCA·
1970-09-03
·cited 69×
Holman sued Ford Motor Company for brake failure in his Thunderbird that caused him to collide with another vehicle to avoid hitting pedestrians. The trial court initially granted a directed verdict on an implied warranty count but later withdrew it when Holman voluntarily nonsui
-
107 So. 2d 601·
Fla.·
1958-10-10
·cited 48×
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for truck suppliers Luby Chevrolet and Cecil & Bruce Truck Equipment in a products liability case where a defectively assembled truck with detached rear end struck the plaintiff's vehicle. The court held that even if the supplie
-
166 F.2d 908·
3d Cir.·
1948-02-26
·cited 46×
The court held that a manufacturer or builder of a structure can be liable for negligence to persons foreseeably in the vicinity of its use, even after the structure has been turned over to the purchaser, and that the plaintiff presented sufficient evidence of negligence and prox
-
265 F.2d 729·
8th Cir.·
1959-04-16
·cited 44×
A manufacturer has a duty to exercise reasonable care in the design and manufacture of its products, including reasonable inspection to discover defects, and can be held liable for injuries proximately caused by a breach of that duty, even if the specific injury was not foreseeab
-
231 F.2d 469·
D.C. Cir.·
1956-01-19
·cited 42×
A contractor performing repairs owes a duty of care to foreseeable users of the repaired property, and a landlord can be liable for an unsafe condition created by their contractor.
-
604 F.2d 417·
5th Cir.·
1979-10-15
·cited 40×
The court held that a contracting purchaser may owe a duty to warn a manufacturer's employees of hazards involved in making the product, and failure to warn can be proximate cause of injury.
-
261 F.2d 187·
2d Cir.·
1958-11-12
·cited 36×
The court held that while the trial court's finding of liability was not erroneous, the damages awarded were not supported by sufficient particularity in the findings, requiring a remand for further findings on damages.
-
209 F.2d 544·
3d Cir.·
1954-01-04
·cited 18×
A manufacturer has a duty to warn users of latent limitations of even a perfectly made article if its use is dangerous without knowledge of those limitations.
-
183 F.2d 733·
6th Cir.·
1950-05-25
·cited 18×
The court held that the trial court erred in directing a verdict, as questions of fact regarding the manufacturer's negligence and identity should have been submitted to the jury.
-
155 F.2d 445·
3d Cir.·
1946-05-08
·cited 18×
The court held that the plaintiffs failed to prove breach of express warranty or negligence because the wire rope was not used for a purpose intended by the manufacturer, and there was insufficient evidence of a manufacturing defect.
-
254 F.2d 12·
6th Cir.·
1958-04-10
·cited 16×
The court held that the evidence presented a question for the jury regarding the manufacturer's negligence and proximate cause, and therefore, a directed verdict for the defendant was improper.
-
173 F.2d 120·
1st Cir.·
1949-03-04
·cited 16×
The court affirmed the dismissal of the declaratory judgment complaint, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise jurisdiction.
-
240 F.2d 92·
2d Cir.·
1957-01-09
·cited 12×
The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the motion for a directed verdict, in its conduct of the trial, or in refusing a new trial based on excessive damages.
-
266 F.2d 948·
5th Cir.·
1959-04-23
·cited 10×
-
263 F.2d 291·
2d Cir.·
1959-02-02
·cited 10×
A manufacturer's duty to a remote user is limited to making the article free from latent defects and concealed dangers.
-
482 F.2d 1307·
10th Cir.·
1973-07-06
·cited 8×
The court held that while negligence and breach of warranty claims were properly submitted, the strict liability theory as applied to business losses was not prejudicial. However, certain damage elements, specifically impairment of capital and speculative future profits, were imp
-
248 F.2d 185·
9th Cir.·
1957-09-17
·cited 8×
The court held that plaintiffs could not recover for wrongful death based on negligence or breach of warranty because the decedent's own actions contributed to the accident and the product had been substantially altered from its original state.
-
234 F.2d 170·
1st Cir.·
1956-05-24
·cited 8×
The court held that the rewritten Count V of the substitute complaint sufficiently stated a cause of action in deceit, and that Count VIII was similarly viable.
-
349 F.2d 490·
8th Cir.·
1965-08-03
·cited 2×
The court held that even if Missouri law permits liability for negligent misrepresentation causing economic loss without privity, causation was absent in this case, precluding recovery.
-
271 F.2d 209·
8th Cir.·
1959-10-21
·cited 2×
The court held that the plaintiff failed to prove the manufacturer's negligence or a specific defect in the automobile, and thus could not recover for injuries sustained in the accident.
-
983 F.2d 1176·
2d Cir.·
1993-01-14
The court held that the architect owed no duty of care to the contractor under New York law absent privity or its functional equivalent, but reversed summary judgment on delay damages due to contractual ambiguity and potential gross negligence.