Mazda Motor Corp. v. Lindahl
Supreme Court of Delaware
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
- MacPherson v. . Buick Motor Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1916
- Erling David Larsen v. General Motors Corporation, a Delaware CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1968
- Huddell v. LevinCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1976
- General Motors Corp. v. EdwardsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1985
- Culver v. BennettSupreme Court of Delaware · 1991
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by36 opinions
- RBC Capital Markets, LLC v. JervisSupreme Court of Delaware · 2015
- Green v. WeinerSupreme Court of Delaware · 2001
- Chrysler Corp. v. Chaplake Holdings, Ltd.Supreme Court of Delaware · 2003
- Eskin v. CardenSupreme Court of Delaware · 2004
- Saudi Basic Industries Corp. v. Mobil Yanbu Petrochemical Co.Supreme Court of Delaware · 2005
31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.