David v. Hett’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 8 district · 29 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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The [East River] Court found the concern for individual safety was reduced when the only damage was to the product because the cost arising from that damage was significantly less than personal injury and much easier to anticipate. It also noted that economic damages to a commercial user when a product injures itself were limited to the product’s lost value, customer displeasure, and increased costs of performance. These economic losses, the Court found, were easily insured and the societal cost for holding a manufacturer liable in tort unjustified. [Citation omitted.] “Second, the East River Court held that contract and warranty law were better suited for commercial controversies when the only damage was to the product because the claim at issue was more naturally viewed as a contract claim arising when the product failed to meet a customer’s expectations. It also found contract law was the better fit because it allowed parties to allocate their respective risks by agreement. In other words, the manufacturer could limit its liability by disclaiming warranties and the purchaser, in turn, could negotiate a lower price. This analysis hinged, however, on the Court’s recognition that ‘a commercial situation generally does not involve large disparities in bargaining power.’ [Citation omitted.] “Third, the East River Court held that permitting the imposition of tort liability for the economic losses suffered by parties not in privity with the manufacturer, such as tire charterers ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Rinehart v. Morton Buildings, Inc.

2. “material failure to perform a duty arising under or imposed by agreement....”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 312 F. Supp. 3d 1010 - Neonatal Prod. Grp., Inc. v. Shields