Wilson v. Hewlett-Packard Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that where a defendant has not made an affirmative misrepresentation, a plaintiff must allege the existence of an unreasonable safety hazard and a causal connection between the defect and the hazard
• holding that twelve consumer complaints coupled with “aggregate information” and “data regarding risk of overheating” was “speculative” and did not give rise to an inference of knowledge.
• holding that under the UCL, there is no duty to disclose any defect that is not contrary to any affirmative statements made by the seller and does not affect the safety of the product
• concluding that plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege defendant knew of a 13 laptop defect despite allegations of customer complaints and the fact that defendant had 14 been sued relating to another laptop model’s defect
• holding that “[t]he allegation that HP, as the manufacturer, had ‘access to the aggregate information and data regarding the risk of overheating’ is speculative and does not suggest how any tests or information could have alerted HP to the defect”
• holding that, where an alleged computer defect weakened the power connection between the power jack and the motherboard, resulting in a loss of power to the computer, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate how the alleged defect caused the computer to “ignite” and pose a safety concern

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).