Cepeda v. Cumberland Engineering Company, 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 “contributory negligence in the sense of mere carelessness or inadvertence” not a defense in strict-liability cases
• holding that \contributory negligence in the sense of mere carelessness or inadvertence\ is not a defense in strict liability cases
• noting that Section 402A is supplemented by 17 comments, some of which are fully incorporated into fabric of our law and none of which has been rejected
• explaining that “[t]he Restatement criterion of ‘unreasonably dangerous’ remains soundly applicable” to design defect claims and disapproving Glass to the extent it held to the contrary
• explaining that \[t]he Restatement criterion of `unreasonably dangerous' remains soundly applicable\ to design defect claims and disapproving Glass to the extent it held to the contrary
• noting \safety codes in existence when a machine is marketed are admissible\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).