Ilosky v. Michelin Tire 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 product liability actions may be premised on three independent theories — strict liability, negligence, and warranty
• recognizing that a product may be deemed “defective” for strict liability purposes if it lacks an adequate warning
• holding that trial court correctly struck punitive damages claim on failure-to-warn theory when defendant had taken steps to warn public of the danger in question and the only issue was whether these steps were adequate
• barring punitive damages because “Michelin had taken steps to warn the public about mixing radial and conventional tires”
• discussing requirement of proximate cause in failure to warn cause of action
• discussing requirement of proximate cause in failure to warn cause of action

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).