Newport Rolling Mill Co. v. Mason

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the brand-name manufacturer had a duty to the generic consumer
• holding that the brand-name manufacturer had a duty to the generic consumer
• holding that the brand-name manufacturer had a duty to the generic consumer
• explaining that the Foster court incorrectly “analyzed the complaint as though it presented an indeterminate tortfeasor problem”
• noting that while some states statutorily define what constitutes a product liability claim, Illinois has not, and nothing in Illinois common law compelled the court to construe the plaintiff's common law negligence claims as product liability claims
• “[Tjhese parties stood in a relationship to one another that, while clearly not ‘direct,’ was sufficient for the law to impose a duty of reasonable conduct upon GSK for the benefit of Plaintiff.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).