Virgil v. \ KASH N'KARRY\ SERVICE CORP.

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that when a thermos exploded two to three months after its sale, that time period did not prevent an inference that the product was defective when acquired
• noting that “[t]he general rule is well established that expert testimony is only required when the subject of the inference is so particularly related to some science or profession that it is beyond the ken of the average layman”
• products liability claim based upon circumstantial evidence of defective thermos requires negation of other possible causes
• products liability claim based upon circumstantial evidence of defective thermos requires negation of other possible causes
• a two to three month interval between purchase of a thermos and injury when thermos imploded
• same, where plaintiff testified that a thermos bottle . . . implode[d] when coffee and milk [were] poured into it, since testimony would prove that the product fail[ed] to meet the reasonable expectations of the user

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).