Coffman v. Keene Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that certain presumptions are \artificial\ and \created to reach public-policy objectives\
• recognizing heeding presumption eases difficulty of showing absence of warning was substantial factor in causing injury
• holding that there is a presumption that a consumer would have obeyed a warning had one been given by the manufacturer, rather than require the consumer to prove that they would not have acted as they did had a proper warning been given
• explaining that \natural\ or \logical\ presumption based on common experience that supports empirically demonstrated probability that presumed fact flows from underlying fact, thus, more probably than not, presumed fact is true
• explaining that “natural” or “logical” presumption based on common experience that supports empirically demonstrated probability that presumed fact flows from underlying fact, thus, more probably than not, presumed fact is true
• defining \heeding presumption\ 3 A-4407-15T1 as \a presumption that plaintiff would have 'heeded' or followed a warning had defendant given one\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).