Parsonson v. Construction Equipment Co.
Michigan Supreme Court
1Per curiam
Prominent in the juristic area of product liability are those rules by which the courts *64are called upon to ascertain the presence or absence of accountability for having manufactured a chattel which the complaining buyer or user alleges, and the defendant manufacturer or retailer denies, was defectively designed. Out of the great welter of professorial and judicial writing for this division of inquiry there has emerged an equally conspicuous classification of causative claims. Such claims are, in order (a) that the manufacturer’s design has created a concealed or hidden danger; (b) that the…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Campo v. ScofieldNew York Court of Appeals · 1950
- Kaminski v. Grand Trunk Western RailroadMichigan Supreme Court · 1956
- Myers v. Montgomery Ward & Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1969
- Murphy v. Cory Pump & Supply Co.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1964
- Blankenship v. Morrison MacHine Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1969
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by35 opinions
- Prentis v. Yale Manufacturing Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1985
- Kirby v. LarsonMichigan Supreme Court · 1977
- Snider v. Bob Thibodeau Ford, IncMichigan Court of Appeals · 1972
- Formall, Inc. v. Community National BankMichigan Court of Appeals · 1988
- Coger v. MacKinaw Products Co.Michigan Court of Appeals · 1973
30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.