Fabian v. Minster MacH. Co., Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that rebuttable presumption exists that missing warning would have been heeded if provided
• discussing a similar misinterpretation of the concepts stemming from a discussion of the \empty chair defense\ in Brown v. United States Stove Co., 98 N.J. 155, 171, 484 A. 2d 1234 (1984)
• “undisputed that defendant’s defenses of contributory and comparative negligence were properly stricken on the first day of trial” because “neither contributory nor comparative negligence is applicable where an employee is injured at a workplace task”
• \undisputed that defendant's defenses of contributory and comparative negligence were properly stricken on the first day of trial\ because \neither contributory nor comparative negligence is applicable where an employee is injured at a workplace task\
• \The burden on a defendant who claims a state-of-the-art defense is to prove only the technological state-of-the-art when the product was manufactured.\ (citing Feldman v. Lederle Labs., 97 N.J. 429, 479 A.2d 374, 388 (1984) (emphasis added))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).