Payne v. Soft Sheen Products, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that rule requiring plaintiff to prove that failure to warn caused his injury “would impose an impossible burden on the plaintiff and would often prevent recovery because of pure speculation on the part of the jury”
• reversing directed verdict for manufacturer in suit for personal injuries alleging negligence and breach of implied warranty
• explaining that the law presumes that “the user would have read an adequate warning, and that in the absence of evidence rebutting the presumption, a jury may find that the defendant’s product was the producing cause of the plaintiff’s injury”
• duty to warn \ ‘cannot be evaluated apart from the knowledge and expertise of those who may reasonably be expected to use' the product\
• “The adequacy of a warning ‘depends, not only on its content, but also on its ability to catch the eye, inducing the user to read it.’”
• “[W]here there are no issues unique to warranty, a claim of strict liability in tort is effectively made out in a complaint for breach of warranty.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).