Legal Opinion

Mazda Motor Corp. v. Lindahl

Supreme Court of Delaware

Decided March 3, 1998No. 283, 1996PublishedCited by 36 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

CHANDLER, Chancellor:

Plaintiff-appellee Jenna Lindahl (“Lin-dahl”) filed suit against defendant-appellant Mazda Motor Corporation (“Mazda”) alleging that a design defect in Mazda’s seat restraint system caused her husband’s death. At the close of Lindahl’s case-in-chief, and again at the close of all evidence, Mazda moved for a directed verdict contending that Lindahl had failed to offer sufficient evidence that an alleged design defect was a proximate cause of any injuries to decedent. The Superior Court denied both motions. We conclude that Lindahl failed to provide sufficient evidence for…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. MacPherson v. . Buick Motor Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1916
  2. Erling David Larsen v. General Motors Corporation, a Delaware CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1968
  3. Huddell v. LevinCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1976
  4. General Motors Corp. v. EdwardsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1985
  5. Culver v. BennettSupreme Court of Delaware · 1991

12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by36 opinions

  1. RBC Capital Markets, LLC v. JervisSupreme Court of Delaware · 2015
  2. Green v. WeinerSupreme Court of Delaware · 2001
  3. Chrysler Corp. v. Chaplake Holdings, Ltd.Supreme Court of Delaware · 2003
  4. Eskin v. CardenSupreme Court of Delaware · 2004
  5. Saudi Basic Industries Corp. v. Mobil Yanbu Petrochemical Co.Supreme Court of Delaware · 2005

31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API