Huber v. Niagara MacH. and Tool Works

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a component, manufacturer had no duty to ensure the proper use of safety mechanisms for which regulations assigned responsibility to the employer when noncompliance was nót reasonably foreseeable to the component manufacturer
• holding as a matter of law that a plaintiffs injury was not reasonably foreseeable. when it resulted from the disabling of a permanently affixed safety feature
• noting that “failure to warn is a cause of action separate from defective design”
• liability for failure to warn in Minnesota is based on principles of negligence
• liability for failure to warn in Minnesota is based on principles of negligence

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).