24 Cited authorities

Liriano v. Hobart Corp.
92 N.Y.2d 232 (N.Y. 1998) Cited 476 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that no duty to warn exists when hazards are known through "general knowledge"
Pulka v. Edelman
40 N.Y.2d 781 (N.Y. 1976) Cited 924 times
Holding that parking garage owner had no special relationship to pedestrians passing by on sidewalk in front of garage exit and that garage had no duty to protect off-premise pedestrians from negligent conduct of patrons
Hamilton v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp.
96 N.Y.2d 222 (N.Y. 2001) Cited 390 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that handgun manufacturers do not owe a duty of reasonable care in the marketing and distribution of their handguns to persons injured or killed through the use of illegally obtained handguns, but leaving open the question of retailers' liability
O'Neil v. Crane Co.
53 Cal.4th 335 (Cal. 2012) Cited 201 times 27 Legal Analyses
Holding that product manufacturer is not liable under any theory for harm caused by a third party's products
Hoover v. New Holland N. Am., Inc.
2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 2215 (N.Y. 2014) Cited 139 times
Noting that "expert evidence raised a question whether failure to replace the [safety] shield [on a post hole digger] alone caused plaintiff's injuries, or whether [this] pointed to a failure on defendants' part in selling and distributing the digger with a defectively designed shield," insofar as the shield was not designed to last the life of the digger
Codling v. Paglia
32 N.Y.2d 330 (N.Y. 1973) Cited 443 times
Holding manufacturer liable for defective product "provided that" plaintiff could not by exercise of reasonable care have discovered the defect and perceived its danger or otherwise averted his injury
Micallef v. Miehle Co.
39 N.Y.2d 376 (N.Y. 1976) Cited 384 times 1 Legal Analyses
Rejecting obviousness of the danger as a complete bar to negligence claims but retaining it with respect to strict product liability claims
Rastelli v. Goodyear Tire Co.
79 N.Y.2d 289 (N.Y. 1992) Cited 235 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding there is no duty to warn about another manufacturer's product when defendant manufactured only sound products and had "no control over the production" of the defective products at issue in the case
Cover v. Cohen
61 N.Y.2d 261 (N.Y. 1984) Cited 283 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that liability in a design-defect case requires a balancing of “the product's risks against its utility and costs and against the risks, utility and cost of the alternatives”
Braaten v. Saberhagen Holdings
165 Wn. 2d 373 (Wash. 2008) Cited 84 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that "a manufacturer has no duty ... to warn of the dangers of exposure to asbestos in products it did not manufacture and for which the manufacturer was not in the chain of distribution"

In the Matter of Eighth Judicial District Asbestos Litigation. Joann H. Suttner,, Respondent,v.A.W. Chesterton Company, et al., Defendants, Crane Co., Appellant.

24 Cited authorities

Holding that no duty to warn exists when hazards are known through "general knowledge"

Holding that parking garage owner had no special relationship to pedestrians passing by on sidewalk in front of garage exit and that garage had no duty to protect off-premise pedestrians from negligent conduct of patrons

Holding that handgun manufacturers do not owe a duty of reasonable care in the marketing and distribution of their handguns to persons injured or killed through the use of illegally obtained handguns, but leaving open the question of retailers' liability

Holding that product manufacturer is not liable under any theory for harm caused by a third party's products

Holding manufacturer liable for defective product "provided that" plaintiff could not by exercise of reasonable care have discovered the defect and perceived its danger or otherwise averted his injury

Rejecting obviousness of the danger as a complete bar to negligence claims but retaining it with respect to strict product liability claims

Holding there is no duty to warn about another manufacturer's product when defendant manufactured only sound products and had "no control over the production" of the defective products at issue in the case

Holding that liability in a design-defect case requires a balancing of “the product's risks against its utility and costs and against the risks, utility and cost of the alternatives”

Holding that "a manufacturer has no duty ... to warn of the dangers of exposure to asbestos in products it did not manufacture and for which the manufacturer was not in the chain of distribution"