California University of PA v. B. Schackner and Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that to prevail on the theory that Ford failed to disclose a design defect, plaintiff 20 must show that Ford had knowledge of the defect at the time of purchase
• finding that a fuel tank defect, as alleged by plaintiff, was a design defect, noting that the problem was defendant’s “plan to use [certain] coatings . . . in constructing its fuel tanks”
• defining “a deficiency in the execution of a product’s assembly or construction” as a non-design defect
• determining the meanings of “material” and “workmanship” by examining the words’ definitions, products liability case law, and other court decisions
• defining “design” in the product-liability context as “the overall plan of construction and operation”
• rejecting the defendant’s assertion that the problem resulted from a design defect at the pleading stage and determining the nature of the defect should be determined at the summary judgment stage

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).