Danforth v. Acorn Structures, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
4 district · 18 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently July 2017 · most notably 620 So. 2d 1244 - Casa Clara Condo. Ass'n v. Charley Toppino and Sons, Inc. (1993), Alloway v. General Marine Industries, L.P. (1997)
4 district · 18 state decisions — followed in 13 states
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 East River Steamship Corp. v. Transamerica Delaval Inc. · 63 Cal. 2d 9 - Seely v. White Motor Co. · 91 Ill. 2d 69 - Moorman Manufacturing Co. v. National Tank Co. · Robins Dry Dock & Repair Co. v. Flint · Santor v. a & M KARAGHEUSIAN, INC.
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.
“damages for inadequate value, costs of repair and replacement of the defective product, or consequent loss of profits . ...”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“"on an understanding of the nature of the responsibility a manufacturer must undertake in distributing his products.” When a product injures only itself the reasons for imposing a tort duty are weak and those for leaving the party to its contractual remedies are strong. ... When a person is injured, the "cost of an injury and the loss of time or health may be an overwhelming misfortune,” and one the person is not prepared to meet. In contrast, when a product injures itself, the commercial user stands to lose the value of the product, risks the displeasure of its customers who find that the product does not meet their needs, or, as in this case, experiences increased costs in performing a service. Losses like these can be insured. Society need not presume that a customer needs special protection. The increased cost to the public that would result from holding a manufacturer liable in tort for injury to the product itself is not justified.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“rW]e are unable to accept Danforth’s contention that Delaware should recognize an exception to the economic loss doctrine by allowing individual consumers, as distinguished from commercial buyers, to recover for economic loss based upon the alleged inherently unequal bargaining power between individual consumers and commercial sellers. Such a rule would defeat the legislative intent of the General Assembly in enacting Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code ... as the complete framework of the rights and remedies available to parties to a sale of goods contract. Article 2 confers broad standing to raise warranty claims for economic loss on product users in privity of contract with the commercial seller and on product users who qualify as third-party beneficiaries ... Therefore, we see no reason to extend tort law into an area adequately governed by warranty law.”
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.