Kenser v. Premium Nail Concepts, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• requiring jury instructions and evidence on foreseeability issues in strict products liability case where no misuse affirmative defense was available
• “The court’s instruction that Kenser’s use of the product was foreseeable ... and did not constitute misuse was correct but inadequate and allowed the possibility that the jury could or would equate ‘skin contact’ with ‘misuse.’ ”
• “[I]f it is reasonably foreseeable to a defendant that its product can be or is being used in a specific manner, and a consumer is injured by using the product in that manner, the defendant cannot argue that the plaintiff had misused its product.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).