John F. Loughan v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Company, John F. Loughan, Cross-Appellee v. Firestone Tire and Rubber Company, Cross-Appellant

How courts have described this case

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

• hold-ing that a tire manufacturer had no duty to inform an experienced mechanic about the hazards of mismatching multipiece rim-wheel assemblies
• “examples [of a purported ‘habit’] [must be] ‘numerous enough to base an inference of systematic conduct’ ” upon them
• evidence that plaintiff “routinely carried a cooler of beer on his truck and . . . was in the habit of drinking on the job” admissible
• evidence that plaintiff tire mechanic routinely brought cooler of beer to work and drank on the job was admissible habit evidence to prove he was intoxicated and contributorily negligent in products liability action
• “[T]rial courts are accorded great latitude in ascertaining taxable costs.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).