Childers v. Power Line Equipment Rentals, 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 reply briefs may not reargue issues raised previously in original advocate’s brief
• defining product “misuse” as an “unforeseeable or outrageous” use of the product
• Supreme Court has been adamant that negligence concepts have no place in a strict liability action
• evidence of the plaintiff's conduct was not admissible because the conduct reflected lack of due care, not recklessness
• evidence that plaintiff acted in highly reckless fashion impacts issue of causation in analogous fashion to evidence of product misuse
• among other conduct, failure to apply parking brakes and parking orientation were contributory negligence, but did not constitute misuse or highly reckless conduct

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).