Ducko v. Chrysler Motors Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that plaintiff can use malfunction theory of proving defect in certain manufacturing defect cases
• reversing summary judgment when plaintiffs testimony suggested that auto malfunctioned while defendant’s expert testimony indicated that operator error caused crash, because jury could credit plaintiffs version of events
• “When a party relies on the malfunction of a product to prove that it was defective, testimony identifying the exact nature of the alleged defect is not essential.”
• “Mrs. Ducko’s testimony of the erratic performance of the vehicle’s steering and braking systems ... was sufficient to make a prima facie case of a manufacturing defect in the vehicle.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).