Crowston v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• applying heeding presumption only to strict liability failure-to-warn claim and not to negligent failure-to-warn theory
• affirming trial courts exclusion of deposition testimony under N.D.R.Evid. 804(b)(1) because deponents were not unavailable within meaning of N.D.R.Evid. 804(a)(5) merely because they were not residents of North Dakota.
• testimony was admissible in a products liability case under the character evidence provisions to show that plaintiff most likely did not have knowledge of the warnings by reading them
• testimony was admissible in a products liabilüy case under the character evidence provisions to show that plaintiff most likely did not have knowledge of the warnings by reading them

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).