Thomas E. Maneely and Arbalundra L. Chambliss v. General Motors Corporation

How courts have described this case

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

• reasoning that a written statement 27 would be sufficient for a breach of express warranty claim but not holding that it was required
• affirming summary judgment on a misrepresentation claim based on advertisements because they “do not make any affirmations of fact or promises”
• rejecting express warranty claim where no “specific and unequivocal statement” or “explicit guarantees” were made
• “Although the question of whether a duty exists is one of law, the question of whether a risk is obvious or generally known is one of fact and thus should be decided by the trier of fact when reasonable minds may differ.” (Citations omitted.) (Emphasis added.)
• “If the public recognizes that traveling in the passenger compartment of an automobile without a seatbelt is dangerous, it only follows as night the day that the public also recognizes that riding in the cargo bed of a pickup . . . presents even greater risks.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).