Hooker v. Super Products Corp.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Under the circumstances of this case, warnings should have been placed on the truck in such a manner that all operators could have been aware of the danger of being near the hose or hose shield on this particular vehicle. If there was any warning decal on the truck at all, it was definitely not on the side where plaintiff was working. The danger of being near a hose which could possibly rupture cannot be considered open and obvious, since handling a similar hose was part and parcel of plaintiffs usual occupation. Once the trier of fact determines that the inherent danger is not obvious, and the consumer is not aware of or trained to detect that danger, then the warning, or lack thereof, must be scrutinized. Clark v. Jesuit High School of New Orleans, 572 So.2d 830 (La.App. 4th Cir.1990), Writ denied, 576 So.2d 48 (La.1991). Therefore, the warning must be: (1) properly worded to signify the intensity of the inherent danger in the product; (2) properly placed on the product so that the consumer cannot avoid seeing it; and (3) it must convey to the consumer that injury or damage can result from a normal or intended use of the product. Id. The manufacturer can then present evidence to show its product either did not require a warning or that the warning that was provided was adequately worded or placed. Id. Asbestos Plaintiffs v. Bordelon, Inc., 96-525 (La.App. 4th Cir.10/21/98), 726 So.2d 926 , 1998 WL 790680 . Plaintiff testified that had he read a warning about the hose, he wo”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 196 So. 3d 776 - Warren v. Shelter Mutual Insurance Co.

2. “The cases cited by Allstate indicate apply [sic] the adverse presumption rule should only apply to situations in which the evidence was destroyed or discarded with no remaining photographs under conditions from which one could infer that the party disposing of the evidence was motivated by a desire to dispose of unfavorable evidence. There is nothing in the way that Choctaw dealt with this bumper from which we might infer that the disposition of the bumper was motivated by a desire to deprive other litigants of access to it. The theory of spoliation of evidence refers to an intentional destruction of the evidence for the purpose of depriving the opposing party of its use.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 829 So. 2d 479 - Riley v. Maison Orleans II, Inc.

3. “evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Palmer v. UV Ins. Risk Retention Grp., Inc.