- Pruitt – airbag deployment at low impact; court refused to charge on consumer expectation test because it is a more technical issue that requires experts
- Morton – consumer contemplation works here
- **if there is something about the alleged defect that is hidden and non obvious, use ‘excessive preventable danger’ test which burdens the defendant.
Friday, March 23, 2012
SOULE V. GM CO. case brief
SOULE V. GM CO.
• consumer contemplation test does not make sense again – consumers do not pay attention to the floor board in a new car – not within the parameters of consumer contemplation
• error to instruct jury on consumer contemplation test, but not a reversible error because there was enough expert testimony to make the jury knowledgeable
1.Campbell – p. 566 – bus passenger thrown from seat and injured during a sharp turn; P claimed defective design because there was no grab bar – court agreed and held that consumers would expect a grab bar on public bus
Earning a Juris Doctor (JD) degree is a significant accomplishment, opening a wide array of career paths beyond the traditional legal practi...
Class 1: Elements of Fundamental Value: Present Value, Future Value, Net Present Value: Elements of Fundamental Value (38) One year : ...
I can help you land in the top 10% of your law school class. Imagine, how your life would be different if you were in the top 10% o...
Corthell v. Summit Thread Company (1933) · Facts: Corthell is a salesman for Summit. He invents contraption that is bought b...