Turner v. Manning, Maxwell & Moore, 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 use of crane to pry fused metal parts free was not a “reasonably foreseeable purpose”
• instructing that a “manufacturer is under a duty to exercise ordinary care to design a product that is reasonably safe for the purpose for which it is intended (citation omitted)
• approving receipt of evidence that a hoist was being misused at time of accident
• “[ejvidence of post-accident design change was properly discoverable because that evidence, although inadmissible, was reasonably likely to lead to discovery of admissible evidence”
• evidence of industry custom \may be conclusive when there is no evidence to show that [the product] was not reasonably safe\
• no liability when product used in manner “not intended” for it

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).