69 Mich. App. 375 - Smith v. E. R. Squibb & Sons, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 federal appellate · 12 state decisions

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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “We do not imply that there is not a valid distinction, in a products liability case, between the theory of implied warranty and the theory of negligence. Under the particular facts of this failure to warn case, however, it becomes a distinction without a difference since the standard and the proofs necessary to recover are identical under both theories. We find it far less confusing to discuss the duty to warn in terms of reasonableness right from the start rather than to become involved in the more cumbersome warranty concepts. As the California Court of Appeals said in Love v. Wolf. “No rule of strict liability (whether expressed in terms of breach of implied warranty, or in terms of a breach of a duty of care in tort) has been applied to a failure adequately to warn of the dangers inherent in the use of a drug. * * * We have already held here there is a duty to exercise reasonable care to warn against the known dangers of a product. * * * There would appear, however, to be no sound basis to attempt to restate these rules in the terms of the law of contract warranties nor to extend them to impose a greater degree of care than that already stated.” Love v. Wolf supra, 226 Cal.App.2d at pp. 402-403, 38 Cal.Rptr. at pp. 197-198. We find, therefore, that the trial court did not commit reversible error in submitting the case to the jury on the negligence theory alone.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp. v. Chapman

2. “Defendant argues, however, that even if the proposed exhibits were inadmissible to prove negligence, they should have been admitted under plaintiff’s implied warranty count to prove the product was defective. We disagree. Inasmuch as the plaintiff’s entire case was built around proof of an inadequate warning, a negligence concept, . . . the theoretical distinction between negligence and implied warranty may not be exploited to obviate the policy reasons for the exclusionary rule.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp. v. Chapman

3. “implied warranty and negligence are separate and distinct theories of recovery and ... under the implied warranty theory it is not necessary to prove negligence”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 670 F. Supp. 206 - Russo v. Abex Corp.