Preston v. Montana Eighteenth Judicial District Court

How courts have described this case

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

• stating “the existence of similar injuries tends to demonstrate the manufacturer’s knowledge of the ‘high probability of injury’”
• allowing discovery of injuries caused by similar products and discovery about various product models as relevant to whether the design was unreasonably dangerous and whether the defendant was aware of the danger and a viable alternative design
• allowing discovery of injuries caused by similar products and discovery about various product models as relevant to whether the design was unreasonably dangerous and whether the defendant was aware of the danger and a viable alternative design
• allowing discovery of injuries caused by similar products and discovery about various product models as relevant to whether the design was umeasonably dangerous and whether the defendant was aware of the danger and a viable alternative design
• allowing discovery of injuries caused by similar products and discovery about various product models as relevant to whether the design was unreasonably dangerous and whether the defendant was aware of the danger and a viable alternative design
• “discovery requests are to be construed broadly in favor of disclosing any information tending to lead to admissible evidence. Whether that evidence is admissible is for the court to decide at trial, not for [the party] to determine at the discovery stage of proceedings”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).