Humphrey v. Diamant Boart, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• finding Dr. Ketchman qualified despite his lack of expertise with the particular product at hand
• “testing is not required to establish feasibility if the expert can point to an existing design in the marketplace, which Ketchman in fact did”
• finding summary judgment on adequacy of warning inappropriate where Plaintiff “contends, through his expert, that the warnings . . . did not conspicuously state the hazards associated with the saw, including tooth separation/fracture and kickback”
• “[Pjlaintiffs [failure to warn] claim here is not limited to the loosening of the guard blade in isolation; rather, it is also based on the failure to adequately warn that the carbide-toothed blade was not recommended and could cause kickbacks.... ”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).