Beerman v. Toro Manufacturing 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 plaintiffs did not need to identify the specific defective lawn mower to sustain their claim of a design defect
• allowing consumer standing under § 480-13 while assuming that standing of businesses was a foregone conclusion
• barring recovery of damages for personal injury under HRS chapter 480
• barring recovery of damages for personal injury under HRS chapter 480
• “Punitive damages awarded against one tortfeasor do not constitute double recovery with respect to a judgment against another tortfeasor since the purpose of punitive awards is to punish a particular offender rather than to compensate the victim for its injury.” (citations omitted)
• defectively designed power lawn mower

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).