Ucc v. P Castro’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 district ·

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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Products liability law has long been bedeviled by the search for an appropriate definition of “defective” product design. Over the years, both in the cases and in the literature, two approaches have come to predominate. The first is the risk/utility theory, which focuses on whether the benefits of a product outweigh the dangers of its design. The second is the consumer expectations theory, which focuses on what a buyer/user of a product would properly expect that the product would be suited for.... Not all states accept both of these ap proaches. Some define design defect only according to the risk/utility approach .... Others define design defect solely in terms of the consumer expectations theory.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 38 F. Supp. 2d 425 - Tannebaum v. Yale Materials Handling Corp.

2. “While the strict products concept of a product that is “not reasonably safe” requires a weighing of the product’s dangers against its over-all advantages, the ... concept of a “defective” product [for warranty purposes] requires an inquiry only into whether the product in question was “fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 171 F. Supp. 2d 241 - Silivanch v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc.