Laura Hollister, American Community Mutual Insurance Company, Intervenor v. Dayton Hudson Corporation

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that “[a]lthough Michigan has not adopted the Proposed Final Draft of the Restatement (Third) of Torts: Product Liability § 2 (April 1, 1997), the Michigan risk-utility test is consistent with the principles of section 2(b)”
• reversing a trial court’s entry of summary judgment based on her alleged misuse of the product
• “An ordinary consumer would have no way of knowing ... that a particular rayon shirt was substantially more combustible and flammable than another rayon shirt.”
• “[I]n cases where a seller is also the manufacturer, Michigan courts have observed that claims of negligence and breach of implied warranty are, for all intents and purposes, identical.”
• “[Plaintiff]’s demonstration that the shirt would burn quickly and intensely, coupled with the CPSC’s report on hospitalization from clothing burns, creates a question of fact for the jury on the issues of severity and foreseeability”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).