Volkswagen of America, Inc. v. Young’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

27 federal appellate · 16 district · 67 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 116 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““In sum, ‘traditional rules of negligence’ lead to the conclusion that an automobile manufacturer is liable for a defect in design which the manufacturer could have reasonably foreseen would cause or enhance injuries on impact, which is not patent or obvious to the user, and which in fact leads to or enhances the injuries in an automobile collision.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Frericks v. General Motors Corp. · 105 Md. App. 318 - Mazda Motor of America, Inc. v. Rogowski

2. “Regardless of whether the theory of § 402A of the Restatement should be accepted in other contexts, we are convinced that it has no proper application to liability for design defects in motor vehicles.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Frericks v. General Motors Corp. · Duran v. General Motors Corp.

3. “We are here dealing with what has become known as the ‘Iatent/patent rule,’ that there is no liability on the part of a manufacturer for negligence, either in design or in failure to warn, where the defect in question is open and obvious to the consumer.... The Iatent/patent rule has an objective, not a subjective, basis. The question is not whether the particular plaintiff actually foresaw the potential danger but whether the danger was sufficiently evident that a reasonable buyer in the plaintiffs position would have foreseen it. One cannot impose liability where it would not otherwise exist simply by denying knowledge of that which to any reasonable person would be obvious. Often ... the patency of the danger is a jury issue because reasonable minds could differ on it. That is not the case here, however. One need do no more than look at a motorcycle unequipped with special devices to know that it provides no protection to lower limbs straddling the vehicle in the event of a collision from either side. Appellant’s self-serving and virtually unrefutable assertion that he was unaware of the danger does not suffice to make the question a jury issue. As the ‘latent/patent rule’ has been applied in Maryland to date, it follows from this that the manufacturer had no general duty either to warn of the danger or to equip the motorcycle with a protective device.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 105 Md. App. 318 - Mazda Motor of America, Inc. v. Rogowski