Mountain v. Procter and Gamble Company

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that under Wisconsin law, the plaintiff could not recover where her allergic reaction to shampoo was one of only three reported instances of such a reaction out of 225,000,000 products sold
• holding that under Wisconsin law, the plaintiff could not recover where her allergic reaction to shampoo was one of only three reported instances of such a reaction out of 225,000,000 products sold
• product must be unreasonably dangerous to the \ordinary consumer\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).