Gomulka v. Yavapai MacHine & Auto Parts, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• deciding that if plaintiff cannot prove his design defect ease in strict liability he cannot prove it in negligence because negligence claim required him to prove elements of strict liability theory plus that defendant knew or should have known product unreasonably dangerous
• stating that one way to determine whether a product is unreasonably dangerous is by conducting a risk/benefit analysis
• finding the negligence claim redundant because if the plaintiff 17 “cannot prove his case in strict liability, he cannot prove it in negligence either”
• a negligent design claim 19 requires Plaintiff “to prove everything he would need to prove under a strict liability 20 theory”
• “If [a plaintiff] cannot prove his case in strict liability, he cannot prove it 8 in negligence either.”
• “One test of whether a product is unreasonably dangerous is whether its inherent danger exceeds the expectation of the ordinary consumer.” (emphasis added)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).