Nielsen v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that “HRE covering ‘admission of scientific and technical evidence are patterned after [FRE Rules] 702 and 703’ ”
• noting that “a witness should not be disqualified as an expert if summary judgment papers demonstrate a HRE Rule 702 basis for qualification; any purported deficiency in expertise should go to the weight of the witness’[] testimony at trial”
• citing, among other authorities, the Restatement (Third) of Torts § 1 (1997) to support the proposition that Plaintiff must also show the seller or distributor of the defective product is engaged in the business of selling or distributing such product
• “In a breach of implied warranty of merchantability claim, Plaintiff must show (1) the seller is a merchant of such goods, and (2) the product was defective or unfit for the ordinary purpose for which it is used.” (some citations omitted
• stating elements of negligence claim in Hawaii

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).