Gosewisch v. American Honda Motor Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• affirming trial court’s refusal to issue an instruction on warning because plaintiffs did not present any evidence that a different warning would have changed the plaintiffs conduct
• heeding presumption rebutted where user 7 did not read manual but also ignored multiple warnings affixed to product
• any heeding presumption rebutted by evidence that plaintiff injured in all-terrain vehicle accident ignored existing warnings about carrying passengers and wearing a helmet
• constitutional arguments may, but need not be considered if raised for first time on appeal
• “[V]ariations are not uncommon with witnesses, especially expert witnesses, and the usual way to handle such variations is by means of cross-examination.”
• superseded by A.R.S. § 12-683 (1992) with respect to affirmative defenses

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).