Todd v. Societe Bic, S.A.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

45 federal appellate · 1 district · 13 state decisions

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

1. “[w]hen given a choice between an interpretation of [state] law which reasonably restricts liability, and one which greatly expands liability, we should choose the narrower and more reasonable path (at least until the [state] Supreme Court tells us differently).”

   7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Robins v. Kroger Co. · Haywood v. Novartis Pharm. Corp.

2. “Quite obviously, the consumer expects the lighter, when activated, to provide a flame. That is exactly how the lighter in this case performed. But the lighter was used to do more; the small flame it produced was used to ignite some papers, causing a deadly fire. The ordinary consumer expects that if a lighter's flame is put to some other combustible object, a larger fire ensues. This makes a lighter dangerous. But it does not make a lighter unreasonably dangerous under the consumer contemplation test ... "[v]irtually any product is capable of producing injury when put to certain uses or misuses.... Injuries are not compensable in products liability if they derive merely from those inherent properties of a product which are obvious to all who come in contact with the product. The injuries must derive from a distinct defect in the product, a defect which subjects those exposed to the product to an unreasonable risk of harm." The fact that a lighter starts a fire is one of its inherent properties. That fact does not breach consumer expectations; really it fulfills them. Therefore, a lighter which does nothing more than provide a small flame is not unreasonably dangerous under the consumer contemplation test.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Qura v. D.R. McClain & Son · Soproni v. Polygon Apartment Partners

3. “dangerous to an extent beyond that which would be contemplated by the ordinary consumer who purchases it, with the ordinary knowledge common to the community as to its characteristics.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Haddix v. Playtex Family Products Corp. · Apperson v. Ei Pont Nemours & Company Styck