Siemens Energy & Automation v. Medina

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that motion for directed verdict should have been granted because defendant acted as a “conduit of information” but did not serve as distributor or retailer for product that injured plaintiff, and thus was not part of the product’s distributive chain
• finding no duty to warn of the obvious danger of standing on top of a nine-foot high piece of equipment that was not designed to be used as a work platform and then falling off
• where jury found that defendant did not manufacture a defective product, negligent failure to warn claim failed under open and obvious danger doctrine
• “Because the jury found in its verdict that Siemens did not manufacture a defective product, this precluded any findings of strict liability or negligence . . .”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).