United States v. Briseno-Nerio

How courts have described this case

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

• collecting and summarizing Florida product warning case law in both the strict liability and negligence contexts
• refusing to impose liability on pump manufacturers that “had no control over the type of insulation the Navy would choose and derived no revenue from sale of [the] asbestos-containing products” that injured the plaintiff’
• adopting the “bare metal” defense under Florida law and explaining that “the duty to act is limited to entities within a product’s chain of distribution on theory that these are the entities best motivated and capable of controlling the risk”
• applying bare-metal defense, finding it 43 A-3520-13T4 consistent with Florida law
• “a manufacturer’s duty to warn, whether premised in negligence or strict liability theory, generally does not extend to hazards arising exclusively from other manufacturer’s products, regardless of the foreseeability of the combined use and attendant risk”
• “[A] manufacturer’s duty to warn, whether premised in negligence or strict liability theory, generally does not extend to hazards arising exclusively from other manufacturer’s products, regardless of the foreseeability of the combined use and attendant risk.” (Emphasis in original)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).