Edwards v. Intergraph Services Co., Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• affirming summary judgment on design-defect claim when the allegedly defective flooring had been used for over 14 years without injury
• granting summary judgment in part because the plaintiff “presented no evi- dence indicating that [the defendant], by inspecting the flooring on its basketball court, could have discovered the defect that allegedly caused his injury”
• \Edwards's deposition testimony makes it clear that he sought to impose liability upon Intergraph for a `design defect'\ in the portion of the premises that allegedly caused his injury
• “Edwards’s deposition testimony makes it clear that he sought to impose liability upon Intergraph for a ‘design defect’ ” in the portion of the premises that allegedly caused his injury
• suggesting this exception is a species of the “failure-to-inspect-or-maintain” cases
• “A premises owner . . . owes no duty to protect invitees from all conceivable dangers they might face while on the premises because ‘the owner of a premises is not an insurer of the safety of his invitees and the principle of res ipsa loquitur is not applicable.’”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).