Roach v. Kononen’s Empirical Analysis
1974
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 21 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently September 2006 · most notably Suter v. San Angelo Foundry & MacHine Company (1979), 335 So. 2d 128 - Casrell v. Altec Industries, Inc. (1976)
11 federal appellate · 21 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 22 Cal. App. 3d 188 - Thompson v. Package MacHinery 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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[I]t is generally recognized that the basic difference between negligence on the one hand and strict liability for a design defect on the other, is that in strict liability we are talking about the condition (dangerousness) of an article which is designed in a particular way, while in negligence we are talking about the reasonableness of the manufacturer's actions in designing and selling the article as he did.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“" *(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. M '(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 existence of suitable warnings or instruction. n '(7) The feasibility, on the part of the manufacturer, of spreading the loss by setting the price of the product or carrying liability insurance.’ ” Roach v. Kononen/Ford Motor Co., 269 Or 457, 464-65 , 525 P2d 125 (1974), citing Wade, On the Nature of ¡strict U art liability for Products, 44 Miss L J 825, 837-38 (19731.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“"(1) One who sells any product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer or to his property is subject to liability for physical harm thereby caused to the ultimate user or consumer, or to his property, if "(a) the seller is engaged in the business of selling such a product, and "(b) it is expected to and does reach the user or consumer without substantial change in the condition in which it is sold. "(2) The rule stated in Subsection (1) applies although "(a) the seller has exercised all possible care in the preparation and sale of his product, and "(b) the user or consumer has not bought the product from or entered into any contractual relation with the seller."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.