Michael Redman v. John D. Brush and Company, D/B/A Sentry Group, Incorporated, and Value-Tique, Incorporated

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that a “metallurgic engineer,” who was “undoubtedly qualified to testify about the properties and characteristics of metal,” was not qualified to testify about industry standards governing safe manufacturing industry
• treating judgment as a matter of law based on insufficiency caused by admission error identically to initial insufficiency
• theft of coin collection from defective safe was economic loss caused by failure of safe to serve its intended function, not loss of other physical property recoverable in tort suit
• unreasonable to consider a fire resistant safe defective because it was not burglar resistant where burglar resistance would decrease fire resistance
• tort claim for theft of coin collection caused by defect in safe was barred because essence of plaintiff's complaint was that safe did not meet economic expectations
• “A plaintiff who is not in privity with the defendant may not maintain a suit for negligence, such as a products liability suit, based on purely economic losses.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).