Stodghill v. Fiat-Allis Construction MacHinery, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that there was no duty to warn of the absence of a protective cage on a bulldozer because it was an obvious risk
• holding that there was no duty to warn of the absence of a protective cage on a bulldozer because it was an obvious risk
• plaintiff precluded from recovery where injury was caused by danger that was open and obvious
• bulldozer without protective metal cage surrounding the driver’s seat
• bulldozer without protective metal cage surrounding the driver's seat

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).