Bailey v. Monaco Coach Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that recall letters are not admissible to show that a defect exists in a particular product
• noting that “expert testimony is not required to establish a defect if that defect is one that can be understood by a reasonable juror”
• rejecting plaintiff's argument that a recall constitutes direct evidence of a defect and finding that a recall notice is insufficient to create a triable issue of material fact regarding the existence of a defect
• “Requiring a warrantor to set forth an exhaustive list, from bumper to bumper, of every included and excluded item would prove unduly burdensome and unnecessary for a clear description of the scope of warranty coverage.” (federal claim)
• a recall notice for a motor home “is insufficient to create a triable issue regarding the existence of a defect.”
• “[T]his recall notice alone is irrelevant without independent proof that Bailey’s brakes suffer from the same defect.” (citations omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).