DoCanto v. Ametek, 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 jury could use lay knowledge to determine that the momentum of ironing machine rollers that sucked plaintiffs hand into machine after power had been shut off was design defect
• explaining that the jury was permitted to conclude, without expert testimony, that “[the defendant] never advised [the employer of the injured plaintiff] of this particular danger”
• “In the judge’s discretion, evidence, otherwise admissible, does not lose that status simply because of a general concession made by the party against whom that evidence is offered”
• jury could determine on their lay knowledge whether the failure to immediately stop was a design defect in a commercial ironing machine
• jury could determine based on its lay knowledge whether failure to immediately stop was design defect in commercial ironing machine
• improper design prevented safety mechanism from operating as intended

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).