Green v. General Motors Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 12 district · 47 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 65 later decisions — most recently May 2017 · most notably Waldorf v. Shuta (1998), Burley v. Kytec Innovative Sports Equipment, Inc. (2007)
2 federal appellate · 12 district · 47 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 Suter v. San Angelo Foundry & MacHine Company · Busik v. Levine · Heavner v. Uniroyal, Inc. · Cartel Capital Corp. v. Fireco of New Jersey · Scafidi v. Seiler
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 65 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a jury must determine the risks and alternatives that should have been known to a reasonable manufacturer, and then assess whether the manufacturer discharged its duty to provide a “reasonably fit, suitable and safe” vehicle. To do this, the jury employs a risk-utility analysis. Jurado v. Western Gear Works, [ 131 N.J. 375 ,] 385, 619 A.2d 1312 [(1992)]. Although there are seven listed factors in the classical statement of the risk-utility, analysis, see Cepeda v. Cumberland Eng’g Co., 76 N.J. 152, 174 , 386 A.2d 816 (1978) and its progeny, the prevalent view is that .... the issue upon which most claims will turn is the proof by plaintiff of a “reasonable alternative design ... the omission ... [of which] renders the product not reasonably safe.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"(b) If proof supports a determination of the harm that would have resulted from other causes in the absence of the product defect, the product seller's liability is limited to the increased harm attributable solely to the product defect. (c) If proof does not support a determination under Subsection (b) of the harm that would have resulted in the absence of the product defect, the product seller is liable for all of the plaintiff's harm attributable to the defect and other causes." [ Green, supra, 310 N.J.Super. at 528 , 709 A. 2d 205 (quoting Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability, § 16(b), (c)(1998)).]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“causes of action for negligence, strict liability and implied warranty have been consolidated into a single product liability cause of action”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.