Schaeffer v. General Motors Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• automobile manual should have warned of a foreseeable risk in the use of a component part manufactured by the defendant
• defendant automobile manufacturer could be found to have violated duty to warn, where owner’s manual represented vehicle component in question as safety device but did not warn of attendant risks, of which jury could have found defendant aware

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).