Williams v. Coleman

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that the alleged failure to recommend installation of a backup alarm in a forklift despite promises of safety constituted nonfeasance
• explaining that “the non-movant must set forth specific facts demonstrating a genuine issue for trial,” and pointing to evidence of a mere “‘metaphysical doubt’ is insufficient” to do so
• absent plaintiff’s reliance, defendant could not proceed on this nonfeasance theory
• A “duty to warn exists where there is unequal knowledge, actual 14 or constructive of a dangerous condition, and the defendant, possessed of such knowledge, knows or should know that harm might or could occur if no warning is given.”
• actor’s undertaking was “limited to the scope of the contract”
• actor’s undertaking was “limited to the scope of the contract”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).