Otis Elevator Co. v. Henderson

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that where a non-settling defendant does not cross-claim against a settling defendant for contribution, and neither the judge nor the jury ever considered liability of settling defendant, nonsettling defendant is only entitled to pro tanto contribution
• concluding that where a nonsettling defendant does not cross-claim against a settling defendant for contribution, and neither the judge nor the jury ever considered liability of settling defendant, nonsettling defendant is only entitled to pro tanto contribution
• finding res ipsa applicable despite plaintiff's inability \to identify the specific mechanical failing\
• Where “any one or more of a number of specific mechanical defects could have led to” the problem and “[a]b-sent conclusive evidence of a specific defect ... Henderson was entitled to have the jury instructed on res ipsa loquitur and negligence.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).