Golonka v. General Motors Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that plaintiff met burden of presenting evidence of a causal link between lack of warning and injury
• heeding 5 presumption rebutted where consumer read and ignored manual and also disregarded 6 warning buzzer
• “The specter of a strict liability information defect judgment provides a strong incentive for manufacturers to adequately warn consumers about hidden dangers linked with product use.”
• “[W]hen application of the consumer expectation test is unfeasible or uncertain in design defect cases, courts additionally or alternatively employ the risk/benefit analysis to determine whether a design is defective and unreasonably dangerous.”
• “In design defect cases, however, the consumer expectation test has limited utility as the consumer would not know what to expect, because he would have no idea how safe the product could be made.” (cleaned up)
• “Arizona courts generally hold that a presumption is a procedural device that shifts the burden of producing contrary evidence to the party opposing the presumed fact but leaves the burden of persuasion on the proponent of the evidence.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).