Small v. Pioneer MacHinery, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• asserting that “proximate cause does not mean the sole cause”
• finding that subsequent modifications did not causally contribute to the injury
• finding no prejudice when a statement that was possibly hearsay was admitted into evidence because the statement was cumulative to other evidence in the record
• finding no abuse of trial court's discretion in admitting lay opinion testimony when the witness based his opinions on his observations and perceptions as the operator of the machinery
• affirming trial court’s denial of defendant’s motion for a directed verdict and JNOV because questions of fact existed as to whether undisputed alterations to the product caused plaintiff’s injuries
• finding a lay witness could offer his opinion as to what caused a machine to malfunction because his opinion was based “upon his observations and perceptions as the [daily] operator” of the machine

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).