Doris Jacobs and Phillip Jacobs (93-4144) Patricia A. Adelmann (93-5978/6561) v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Company

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that, where reasonable persons cannot differ as to the adequacy of warnings, “there are no material issues of fact necessitating a trial”
• holding that, where reasonable persons cannot differ as to the adequacy of warnings, “there are no material issues of fact necessitating a trial”
• interpreting Tennessee law and holding that a warning about the use of Teflon products in medical applications was adequate as a matter of law
• making the supplier liable for users’ mistakes would “stymie the kind of beneficial scientific innovation” recurrent in “human endeavor”
• “appellee can propose alternative grounds in support of trial court judgment so long as those arguments were presented below”
• “Ohio law is settled that a component part manufacturer has no duty to warn end-users of the finished product of the potentially dangerous nature of its parts in that product.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).