AUBURN MACH. WORKS, CO., INC. v. Jones

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that in a products liability action the \patent danger\ or \open and obvious hazard\ doctrine is not a bar to recovery, but a defense to which the principles of comparative negligence apply
• holding that in products liability cases, the obviousness of a hazard is not an exception to. a manufacturer’s liability, but is a defense that a manufacturer can use to show a plaintiff did not exercise reasonable care based on the openness and obviousness of the danger
• rejecting the patent danger doctrine, which - 21 - insulates manufacturers from liability if a dangerous product does not create a unknown risk to the user and is without any latent defect, as a total defense to strict liability claims involving defective products
• without deciding whether defendant's machine was defective, court affirmed summary judgment in favor of defendant on ground that plaintiff's conduct was sole cause of plaintiff's injury
• \patent danger\ or \open and obvious hazard\ rejected as exception to manufacturer's liability

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).