The Armitage Brearley

How courts have described this case

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

• observing that simply because a vehicle caught fire does not mean that the vehicle was defective
• explaining that “the mere fact that a fire consumes an automobile is insufficient” to establish a design defect
• finding that circumstantial evidence of a defect in the electrical system of a burned car was insufficient because the plaintiff failed to eliminate other possible causes such as faulty repair
• see also Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §§ 2307.74-76 (Anderson 1991) (establishing different liability tests for manufacturing defects, design defects, and failure to warn)
• superceded by statute on other grounds, R.C. § 2307.75, as recognized in Perkins v. Wilkinson Sword, Inc., et al., 83 Ohio St.3d 507, 700 N.E.2d 1247 (1998)
• appellate court’s remand erroneously revived claims that had been abandoned on appeal

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).