Ross v. Up-Right, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
402 F.2d 943 · 1968
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 1 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently June 2009 · most notably Reyes v. Wyeth Laboratories (1974), Turner v. General Motors Corp. (1979)
15 federal appellate · 1 district · 7 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 McKisson v. Sales Affiliates, Inc. · Halepeska v. Callihan Interests, Inc. · Helene Curtis Industries, Inc. v. Pruitt · Dowell, Inc. v. Jowers · American Mutual Liability Insurance v. Parker
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“* * * The test in 'no duty' and volenti, however is subjective: did plaintiff know and appreciate. Comment 'c' Sec. 496D of the Proposed Restatement of Torts, Second, supra, footnote 3, states, 'The standard to be applied is a subjective one, of what the particular plaintiff in fact see, knows, understands and appreciates. In this it differs from the objective standard which is applied to contributory negligence.' " 6 In McDevitt this court was considering the applicability of a contributory negligence defense of misuse of the product. The court, while concluding that the Texas courts would recognize a defense of misuse to a strict liability action, stated: "It is evident from these two decisions (Shamrock and McKisson) that the Supreme Court of Texas did not decide that contributory negligence is never a defense to a strict liability action, but limited its holding to the principle that one who is contributorily negligent in failing to discover a defect in a product is not barred from recovery. The question of whether that species of contributory negligence variously referred to as 'misuse', 'improper use', 'voluntarily proceeding to encounter a known risk' or any other of the myriad synonyms used by various courts and writers constitutes defensive matter to such an action was expressly left open.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Section 402A of the Restatement sets forth two requirements for liability of a manufacturer: that the product be `in a defective condition' and that it be `unreasonably dangerous'. `Demanding that the defect render the product unreasonably dangerous reflects a realization that many products * * * have both utility and danger.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“One who sells any product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer ... is subject to liability for physical harm thereby caused to the ultimate user .”
1 later decision 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.