Legal Opinion
Hollister v. Dayton Hudson Corp.
District Court, E.D. Michigan
Decided May 12, 1998No. Civil Action 96-73142PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION AND ORDER
FEIKENS, District Judge.
I. Introduction
This is a design defect product liability case. To resolve its central issue, I must apply Michigan’s risk-utility test, a test which balances the magnitude of risk in the use of a product with the utility of use of that product. • The Michigan Supreme Court adopted the risk-utility test for design defect product liability cases in the landmark decision, Prentis v. Yale Mfg. Co., 421 Mich. 670, 365 N.W.2d 176 (1984). “Thus we adopt, forthrightly, a pure negligence, risk-utility test in products liability actions against manufacturers of…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Erie Railroad v. TompkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1941
- Prentis v. Yale Manufacturing Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1985
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Randy Peck Sharon Peck v. Bridgeport MacHines Inc. Romi CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2001
- Laura Hollister, American Community Mutual Insurance Company, Intervenor v. Dayton Hudson CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2000
- Laura Hollister, American Community Mutual Insurance Company, Intervenor v. Dayton-Hudson CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1999
- DANDY v. ETHICON WOMEN'S HEALTH AND UROLOGYDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 2022
- Hollister v. Dayton HudsonCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2000
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.