Jackson v. Harsco Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 3 district · 25 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently February 2010 · most notably Palmer v. AH Robins Co., Inc. (1984), Armentrout v. FMC Corp. (1992)
8 federal appellate · 3 district · 25 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 Hiigel v. General Motors Corporation · Union Supply Co. v. Pust · 39 Colo. App. 70 - Good v. AB Chance Co. · 37 Colo. App. 555 - Kinard v. Coats Company, Inc. · 33 Colo. App. 92 - Transamerica Insurance Co. v. Pueblo Gas & Fuel Co.
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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Misuse by an injured party which cannot reasonably be anticipated by the manufacturer can be utilized as a defense in a products liability case by showing that the conduct of the user, and not the alleged defect in the product, actually caused the accident. Kinard v. Coats Co., Inc., supra. Section 402(A) recognizes a defense for the manufacturer where the user mishandles or misuses a product and thereby creates a dangerous condition. Bradford v. Bendix-Westinghouse Automotive Air Brake Co., supra. The usual situation in which the defense may be asserted is where the product is being used in a way other than that which was intended and which could not reasonably have been anticipated by the manufacturer.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“does not rest upon negligence principles, but rather is premised on the concept of enterprise liability for casting a defective product into the stream of commerce.... Thus, the focus is upon the nature of the product, and the consumer’s reasonable expectations with regard to that product, rather than on the conduct either of the manufacturer or of the person injured because of the product.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“In strict liability cases, assumption of the risk is defined as: 'voluntarily and unreasonably proceeding to encounter a known danger....'”
2 later decisions 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.