Johansen v. Makita U.S.A., Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that where comparative fault is not available as a defense, plaintiff's conduct may be relevant on proximate cause
• holding that uncertainty about whether jury’s answer to interrogatory referred to plaintiffs misuse of product undermined confidence in jury’s finding of no product defect
• holding that uncertainty about whether jury's answer to interrogatory referred to plaintiff's misuse of product undermined confidence in jury's finding of no product defect
• providing summary of this Court’s adoption of risk-utility analysis and seven factors considered
• even when plaintiff with actual knowledge of danger presented by defective product knowingly and voluntarily encounters that risk, such conduct cannot serve as basis for defense
• even when plaintiff with actual knowledge of danger presented by defective product knowingly and voluntarily encounters that risk, such conduct cannot serve as basis for defense

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).