Ewer v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that where manufacturer Goodyear provided no warning of the hazard of \bead breaking\ in its tires during mounting procedures, there was a factual issue as to whether the danger was sufficiently obvious such that Goodyear had no duty to warn
• finding that where manufacturer Goodyear provided no warning of the hazard of “bead breaking” in its tires during mounting procedures, there was a factual issue as to whether the danger was sufficiently obvious such that Goodyear had no duty to warn
• “The third requirement does not mean that plaintiff must conclusively prove no action on his part contributed to the accident but rather that he bring forth sufficient evidence to allow a jury to exclude his conduct as a responsible cause.”
• conflicting evidence as to cause of accident
• tire exploded while being mounted
• tire exploded while being mounted

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).