John S. Marchant v. The Dayton Tire & Rubber Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that compliance with industry standards “is not dispositive, and counsel may argue that industry standards can and should be more stringent”
• rejecting proposition that “plaintiff must prove that the alternative design was efficient on a cost/benefit basis”
• concluding “that a new trial on damages is appropriate”
• “[t]he alternative [design] need not be in fact available .... The . . . test is one of feasibility.” The “plaintiff’s case is not automatically defeated merely because the alternative design was not being used at the material time”
• unreasonable use of tire by over inflation

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).