Powell v. Harsco Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding inadequacy of warning was not proximate cause of injury
• both holding that plaintiffs’ failure to read actual warnings barred recovery-on “failure to warn” theory because adequate warnings would not have altered plaintiffs conduct
• “Whether proceeding under a strict liability or negligence theory, ‘proximate cause’ is a necessary element of [the plaintiff’s] case.”
• “Whether proceeding under a strict liability or negligence theory, ‘proximate cause’ is a necessary element of [the plaintiffs] case.”
• “The alleged inadequacy of the installation instructions cannot be the proximate cause of the collapse of the catwalk and [decedent’s] death when the installer did not read the installation directions that [defendant’s] subsidiary actually provided.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).