Barris v. Bob's Drag Chutes & Safety Equipment, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
685 F.2d 94 · 1982
Citation profile
22 federal appellate · 13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 57 later decisions — most recently July 2018 · most notably Zenith Radio Corp. v. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. (1983), 611 F. Supp. 1223 - In Re "Agent Orange" Product Liability Litigation (1985)
22 federal appellate · 13 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 Erie Co v. Tompkins · Continental Ore Company v. Union Carbide and Carbon Corporation · MacPherson v. . Buick Motor Co. · Blanton v. General Electric Credit Corp. · Lyon v. California
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 57 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“increased the severity of the injury over that which would have occurred absent the defective design.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“We refuse to adopt the superficial distinction that proof of a malfunction is the only circumstantial evidence available from which a `defective condition' in a product can be inferred. * * * Evidence of a malfunction is but one piece of circumstantial evidence that can be used to elicit the inference that a product was in a `defective condition.' `(A) defect can be inferred from unexplained occurrences' and need not be directly proved.' [Citation.] As previously noted by Dean Prosser other circumstantial evidence ((1) expert testimony as to possible causes; (2) the occurrence of the accident a short time after the sale; (3) same accidents in similar products; (4) the elimination of other causes of the accident; (5) the type of accident that does not happen without a defect) may permit the inference that the product was defective. [Citation.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) One who sells any product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer or to his property is subject to liability for physical harm thereby caused to the ultimate user or consumer, or to his property, if (a) the seller is engaged in the business of selling such a product, and (b) it is expected to and does reach the user or consumer without substantial change in the condition in which it is sold. (2) The rule stated in Subsection (1) applies although (a) the seller has exercised all possible care in the preparation and sale of his product, and (b) the user or consumer has not bought the product from or entered into any contractual relation with the seller.”
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.