Uloth v. City Tank Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that “there is a case for the jury if the plaintiff can show an available design modification which would reduce the risk without undue cost or interference with the performance of the machinery”
• declining to adopt a rule that \there can be no negligent design ... if adequate warnings are given\
• having failed to raise inconsistency in jury's verdict before jury was dismissed, defendants could not argue inconsistency on appeal
• having failed to present motion raising issue of inconsistency in verdict before dismissal of jury, party may not argue inconsistency on appeal
• having failed to present a motion raising the issue of inconsistency in the verdict before the dismissal of the jury, defendants may not argue inconsistency on appeal
• abolition of defense of assumption of risk effected by St. 1973, c. 1123, has no application to 1970 injury

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).