Dura Corp. v. Harned

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing two types of comparative negligence in products liability cases and discussing product misuse as comparative negligence
• balancing relevancy and considerations of delay, confusion, and prejudice in determining admissibility of evidence of prior or subsequent accidents
• “The issue of proximate cause is normally a question of fact for the jury to decide and becomes a matter of law only where reasonable minds could not differ.”
• \The issue of proximate cause is normally a question of fact for the jury to decide and becomes a matter of law only where reasonable minds could not differ.\
• when a claimed design defect consisted of the lack of a safety device, a court may instruct on comparative negligence only if the plaintiff (1) knowingly uses a defective product and (2) voluntarily and unreasonably encounters a known risk
• admitted other exploding air tanks

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).