Legal Opinion
Hyjek v. Anthony Industries
Washington Supreme Court
Decided October 9, 1997No. 64326-1PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtMadsen, J.
— Plaintiff Gary Hyjek brought an action claiming design defect against Anthony Industries’ subsidiary, K2 Corporation (K2), as a result of an injury he sustained while using a K2 snowboard. Plaintiff contends the trial court’s decision excluding evidence of subsequent remedial measures relating to the binding retention system of K2’s snowboards was error. We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
K2 Corporation, a subsidiary of Anthony Industries, *416designs, manufactures, and markets snowboards and other winter sports equipment. In 1990, K2 marketed a snowboard model called the "Dan Donnelly XTC.” Ex. 6.…
2Cases cited58 opinions
- Columbia & Puget Sound Railroad v. HawthorneSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
- Sarah Helen Williams Dollar v. Long Mfg., N. C., Inc., and Third-Party v. Nichols Tractor Company, Inc., Third-PartyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1977
- Caprara v. Chrysler Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1981
- Shaffer v. Honeywell, Inc.South Dakota Supreme Court · 1976
- Howard Jay Josephs v. Harris Corporation, a Delaware CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1982
53 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- First Premier Bank v. Kolcraft Enterprises, Inc.South Dakota Supreme Court · 2004
- Duchess v. Langston Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2001
- Hiner v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc.Court of Appeals of Washington · 1998
- Christianson v. Snohomish Health Dist.Washington Supreme Court · 1997
- Hyjek v. Anthony IndustriesWashington Supreme Court · 1997
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.