Cooley v. Quick Supply Company

How courts have described this case

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

• requiring “reasonable assurance that the information will reach those whose safety depends upon then-having it” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• explaining question of whom should receive warning is “to be decided [by a jury] by standards of reasonable care.”
• requiring “reasonable assurance that the information will reach those whose safety depends upon their having it” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• explaining question of whom should receive warning is “to be decided [by a jury] by standards of reasonable care.”
• upholding jury verdict, finding under § 388 defendant supplier of dynamite fuse had duty to warn because fuse was sold to be used as a trigger for detonating dynamite, a highly dangerous substance, supplied by another
• upholding jury verdict, finding under § 388 defendant supplier of dynamite fuse had duty to warn because fuse was sold to be used as a trigger for detonating dynamite, a highly dangerous substance, supplied by another

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).