Bailey v. Montgomery Ward and Company
Court of Appeals of Arizona
1DissentMolloy, Judge
The writer finds himself mildly in disagreement with the majority opinion, as to the result reached, but firmly in disagreement as to the reasoning used to reach that result.
The majority opinion overstates the evidence in favor of upsetting the decision below. The evidence as to the total use made of this toy by the two Bailey children is vaporous at best. It was first used by the younger child, Ricky, eight years of age, and the only testimony delineating the extent of this use is as follows:
“Q For how long did he play with it?
“A [The plaintiff’s mother] Not very long, I’m not sure how long.
“…
2Cases cited31 opinions
- Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1928
- Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1963
- Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1960
- Seely v. White Motor Co.California Supreme Court · 1965
- Escola v. Coca Cola Bottling Co.California Supreme Court · 1944
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.