Barker v. Lull Engineering Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “a plaintiff satisfies his burden of proof ... in both a manufacturing defect and design defect context, when he proves the existence of a defect and that such defect was a proximate cause of his injuries”
• allocating burden of proof to manufacturer to show that product not defectively designed because “the feasibility and cost of alternative designs ... involve technical matters peculiarly within the knowledge of the manufacturer”
• “term defect as utilized in the strict liability context is neither self-defining nor susceptible to a single definition applicable in all contexts”
• the test stops short of making the manufacturer an insurer for all injuries which may result from the use of its product
• “high-lift loader” designed to lift heavy loads on varying terrains could be found defective for lack of stabilizers, seat belt, roll bar, and properly protected leveling mechanism
• \high-lift loader\ designed to lift heavy loads on varying terrains could be found defective for lack of stabilizers, seat belt, roll bar, and properly protected leveling mechanism

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).