Forrest A. Flaminio and Gloria Flaminio v. Honda Motor Company, Ltd., a Japanese Corporation

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the difference between negligent and strict liability duty-to-warn claims, “if any,” was “so small” that the district court’s failure to give separate instructions on them was harmless
• observing that Rule 407's policy of promoting repairs \is not fundamentally affected by whether the basis of liability is the defendant's negligence or his product's defectiveness\
• “the test for an ‘unreasonably dangerous’ condition is equivalent to a negligence standard of reasonableness ... ”
• “the strict liability duty to warn, as usually formulated ... is hard to distinguish in practice from the duty to warn imposed by a negligence standard”
• Judge Posner notes \ 'test for an \unreasonably dangerous” condition is equivalent to a negligence standard of reasonableness . . . .’ ”
• a design tradeoff involving competing safety concerns does not raise an issue of feasibility

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).