Legal Opinion

Ray Ex Rel. Holman v. BIC Corp.

Tennessee Supreme Court

Decided July 15, 1996PublishedCited by 58 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

WHITE, Justice.

In this Rule 23 case we are called upon to address whether our products liability statute, codified at Tennessee Code Annotated Section 29-28-101 to -108, provides for a risk-utility test in addition to the consumer expectation test for determining whether a product is unreasonably dangerous. For the reasons set forth below, we hold that our present statute provides for two tests: the consumer expectation test and the prudent manufacturer test. The latter requires risk-utility balancing in its application.

I. Facts

On September 3, 1982, the Memphis apartment building in…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Barker v. Lull Engineering Co.California Supreme Court · 1978
  2. Soule v. General Motors Corp.California Supreme Court · 1994
  3. Banks v. ICI Americas, Inc.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1994
  4. Phillips v. Kimwood MacHine CompanyOregon Supreme Court · 1974
  5. Tidwell v. CollinsTennessee Supreme Court · 1975

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

3Cited by58 opinions

  1. Bethie Pride v. Bic Corporation Societe Bic, S.A.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2000
  2. Sigler v. American Honda Motor Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2008
  3. Brown v. Crown Equipment Corp.Tennessee Supreme Court · 2005
  4. Rutherford v. Polar Tank Trailer, Inc.Court of Appeals of Tennessee · 1998
  5. Calles v. Scripto-Tokai Corp.Illinois Supreme Court · 2007

53 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