Edgar v. Nachman’s Empirical Analysis
1971
Citation profile
8
cited by 8 later decisions
2
states following
April 1981
most recently cited
2 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on MacPherson v. . Buick Motor Co. · Cree v. Goldstein · Larsen v. General Motors Corp. · Campo v. Scofield · Evans v. General Motors Corp.
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The duty of the manufacturer of a machine which is inherently dangerous because of the way it functions is to make it free from latent defects or concealed dangers not known to the plaintiff. (MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co., 217 N.Y. 382 , 111 N.E. 1050 .) The appellant would have us extend this rule, which governs the care required in construction, and impose liability on manufacturers for injury resulting from automobile design deficiencies. “There have been cases where liability has been imposed upon a manufacturer for improper design which caused the accident (Rooney v. S. A. Healy Co., 20 N.Y.2d 42 , 281 N.Y.S.2d 321 , 228 N.E.2d 383 ; Carpini v. Pittsburg & Weirton Bus Co., 3 Cir., 216 F.2d 404 ), and a few jurisdictions have allowed recovery where the design of the car did not cause the accident but increased or aggravated the injury (cf. Larsen v. General Motors Corp., 8 Cir., 391 F.2d 495 and cases cited therein; contra, Evans v. General Motors Corp., 7 Cir., 359 F.2d 822 , cert. den. 385 U.S. 836 , 87 S.Ct. 83 , 17 L.Ed.2d 70 ), but no decisions in this state are called to our attention which allow recovery against the manufacturer for unsafe design characteristics which do not cause the accident but only aggravate the damages. “The New York rule is stated in Campo v. Scofield, 301 N.Y. 468 , 95 N.E.2d 802 . Liability may not be imposed on a manufacturer solely because his product is dangerous to use and he has failed to make safety provision against all anticipated”
1 later decision 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.