Darby v. Jorndt

How courts have described this case

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

• agreeing that “the enhanced injuries are a subsequent and separate event” from the initial collision
• stating \the defense of comparative negligence does not apply in crashworthiness cases\
• stating \the defense of comparative negligence does not apply in crashworthiness cases\
• “[T]he doctrine of crashworthiness itself divides and allocates fault to a manufacturer for damages it alone caused . . . .” (emphasis added)
• “If the General Assembly intends for comparative negligence to constitute a defense under either of these theories, it is unquestionably capable of amending these statutory schemes accordingly.”
• “[T]he enhanced injuries are a subsequent and separate event, the sole cause of which is the manufacturer’s defective design” and, “[t]herefore, any negligence on the part of the plaintiff in causing the initial collision is irrelevant.” (emphases in original)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).