Birmingham v. Fodor's Travel Publications, Inc.

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 publisher of a work of general circulation, that neither authors nor expressly guarantees the contents of its publication, has no duty to warn the reading public of the accuracy of the contents of its publication”
• holding that “a publisher of a work of general circulation, that neither authors nor expressly guarantees the contents of its publication, has no duty to warn the reading public of the accuracy of the contents of its publication”
• holding a negligence action lies only where there is a duty owed by defendant to plaintiff
• “hold[ing] that a publisher of a work of general circulation, that neither authors nor expressly guarantees the contents of its publication, has no duty to warn the reading public of the accuracy of the contents of its publication”
• \The general rule in this jurisdiction is that we will not address a legal theory not raised by the appellant in the court below.\
• “an occupier of land ... ‘has a duty to use reasonable care for the safety of all persons reasonably anticipated to be upon the premisesf,]’ ” (quoting Pickard v. City & County of Honolulu, 51 Haw. 134, 135, 452 P.2d 445, 446 (1969))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).