10 Haw. App. 547 - Wagatsuma v. Patch’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 12 district · 24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently February 2015 · most notably McCarthy v. Olin Corp. (1997), Tabieros v. Clark Equipment Co. (1997)
6 federal appellate · 12 district · 24 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Sartor v. Arkansas Natural Gas Corp. · Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc. · Edwards v. Aguillard · 20 Cal. 3d 413 - Barker v. Lull Engineering Co. · Escola v. Coca Cola Bottling Co.
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a consumer is `entitled' to assume that a product is intended for its ordinary use and thus, the consumer should recover if harm results[;]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the following [risk-utility] factors [are] relevant to determine whether a product is defective: (1) The usefulness and desirability of the product—its utility to the user and to the public as a whole[;] (2) The safety aspects of the product—the likelihood that it will cause injury, and the probable seriousness of the injury!;] (3) The availability of a substitute product which would meet the same need and not be as unsafe!;] (4) The manufacturer’s ability to eliminate the unsafe character of the product without impairing its usefulness or making it too expensive to maintain its utility!;] (5) The user’s ability to avoid danger by the exercise of care in the use of the product[;] (6) The user’s anticipated awareness of the dangers inherent in the product and their avoidability, because of general public knowledge of the obvious condition of the product, or of the exercise of suitable warnings or instructions!; and] (7) The feasibility, on the part of the manufacturer, of spreading the loss by setting the price of the product or carrying liability insurance.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““The obviousness of the danger, unless it justifies the conclusion that the condition is not unreasonably dangerous, has been held not to preclude liability on the part of a manufacturer who negligently designs a machine.... The creation of any unreasonable danger is enough to establish negligence, even though the danger is obvious. And it is ordinarily a question for the jury as to whether or not a failure to install a safety device creates an unreasonable risk. ””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.