Mai Thi Tran v. Toyota Motor 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 the trial court erred by only instructing the jury on the Third Restatement’s risk-utility test, and not also giving the consumer-expectation test as an independent basis for liability
• distinguishing a prior case where “the excluded expert’s ‘analysis was somewhat different,’ his testimony was ‘more comprehensive,’ and the witness ‘had different, and arguably better qualifications than the other experts’ ”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).