9 Cited authorities

In re Zeth S.
31 Cal.4th 396 (Cal. 2003) Cited 1,553 times
Explaining how " ‘[t]he dependency scheme is a "remarkable system of checks and balances" ’ "
Soule v. General Motors Corp.
8 Cal.4th 548 (Cal. 1994) Cited 1,246 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that the consumer expectations test was not appropriate for a claim that a car was defective because the wheel assembly detached in accident
Barker v. Lull Engineering Co.
20 Cal.3d 413 (Cal. 1978) Cited 589 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that once a plaintiff makes a prima facie showing of injury caused by product's design, the burden should shift to the defendant to prove that the product is not defective
Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co.
119 Cal.App.3d 757 (Cal. Ct. App. 1981) Cited 250 times 1 Legal Analyses
Upholding a jury award of punitive damages against Ford for its manufacture of the Pinto, and holding that "punitive damages are recoverable in a nondeliberate or unintentional tort where the defendant's conduct constitutes a conscious disregard of the probability of injury to others"
Bell v. Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft
181 Cal.App.4th 1108 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) Cited 94 times
Reviewing grant of new trial based on "[i]rregularity in the proceedings" for abuse of discretion
Cronin v. J.B.E. Olson Corp.
8 Cal.3d 121 (Cal. 1972) Cited 261 times 1 Legal Analyses
Rejecting portion of section 402A of the Restatement Second of Torts while approving other portions of that section
Horn v. General Motors Corp.
17 Cal.3d 359 (Cal. 1976) Cited 79 times
Holding that the plaintiff's failure to wear a seatbelt could not be introduced by the defendant for purposes of proving that the plaintiff was negligent or that the defendant's conduct was not the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injury
Self v. General Motors Corp.
42 Cal.App.3d 1 (Cal. Ct. App. 1974) Cited 51 times
In Self, supra, an analogous case, the issue was whether the placement of a Chevrolet's fuel tank made the tank too vulnerable to the rupture and fire which occurred in a rear end collision.
Rule 8.520 - Briefs by parties and amici curiae; judicial notice
Cal. R. 8.520 Cited 3,146 times
(a)Parties' briefs; time to file (1) Within 30 days after the Supreme Court files the order of review, the petitioner must serve and file in that court either an opening brief on the merits or the brief it filed in the Court of Appeal. (2) Within 30 days after the petitioner files its brief or the time to do so expires, the opposing party must serve and file either an answer brief on the merits or the brief it filed in the Court of Appeal. (3) The petitioner may file a reply brief on the merits or

KIM v. TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION

9 Cited authorities

Explaining how " ‘[t]he dependency scheme is a "remarkable system of checks and balances" ’ "

Holding that the consumer expectations test was not appropriate for a claim that a car was defective because the wheel assembly detached in accident

Holding that once a plaintiff makes a prima facie showing of injury caused by product's design, the burden should shift to the defendant to prove that the product is not defective

Upholding a jury award of punitive damages against Ford for its manufacture of the Pinto, and holding that "punitive damages are recoverable in a nondeliberate or unintentional tort where the defendant's conduct constitutes a conscious disregard of the probability of injury to others"

Reviewing grant of new trial based on "[i]rregularity in the proceedings" for abuse of discretion

Rejecting portion of section 402A of the Restatement Second of Torts while approving other portions of that section

Holding that the plaintiff's failure to wear a seatbelt could not be introduced by the defendant for purposes of proving that the plaintiff was negligent or that the defendant's conduct was not the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injury

In Self, supra, an analogous case, the issue was whether the placement of a Chevrolet's fuel tank made the tank too vulnerable to the rupture and fire which occurred in a rear end collision.