King v. Danek Medical, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that “the failure or malfunction of the device, without more, will not make the defendant liable”
• explaining that a products-liability plaintiff must “trace [her] injury to the specific defect”
• affirming summary judgment because the physicians were aware of the unwarned risk and decided to implant screws into plaintiff regardless
• “[i]n a product liability claim, the fact that a plaintiff is injured is not proof of a defect in the product”
• applying doctrine to spinal fixation device
• applying doctrine to spinal fixation device

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).