Kearl v. Lederle Laboratories

How courts have described this case

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

• “unavoidability” turns on “(i) whether the product was designed to minimize—to the extent scientifically knowable at the time it was distributed—the risk inherent in the product, and (ii
• “Strict products liability . . . in effect imputes to the manufacturer knowledge—as of the time of trial—of any risk posed by his product.”
• “If the court concludes after taking such evidence that (1) the product was intended to provide an exceptionally important benefit that made its availability highly desirable, (2) the risk posed by the product was substantial and unavoidable when distributed, and (3
• court must consider availability and safety of alternative products
• court must consider availability and safety of alternative products
• finding warning on a vaccine was adequate

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).