Clark v. Brass Eagle, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 8 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “defect that allegedly was the proximate cause of their injury existed at the time that the product left the hands of the manufacturer, and that the defect rendered the product unreasonably dangerous. Accordingly, the proof must support that no material change in that product occurred after leaving the manufacturer's control.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 3M Co. v. Johnson · Williams v. Bennett

2. “Based on the depositions of Clark and Rico, we find that the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of Brass Eagle. The facts do not support any other conclusion. Clark offered no proof that the paintball gun used in the incident failed to function as expected and offered no feasible design alternative which, to a reasonable probability, would have prevented what happened to him. In fact, Clark's testimony is detrimental to his claim. Clark testified that he was aware that there was protective eyewear available for purchase at Wal-Mart, but he chose not to do so. He was an active participant in shooting paintballs at other vehicles. The evening of the incident at issue here Clark and his friends in his car carried their paintball guns with them for that purpose. Clark testified that his parents were aware that he had purchased a paintball gun and engaged in shooting paintballs at other friends' cars. Clark appreciated that there was a danger in shooting at people evidenced by his statement that it was "common sense" not to shoot anyone in the face with a paintball gun. Clark said that he guessed it was "common sense" to not shoot anyone in the eye. No one playing the "game" wore protective masks or eyewear. Rico's testimony further supports the trial court's decision to grant summary judgment as to Brass Eagle. While Rico used a friend's paintball gun to shoot Clark, Rico's dad had bought a Brass Eagle Talon paintball gun for him the day of the incident”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Williams v. Bennett · 954 So. 2d 1032 - Green v. Allendale Planting Co.

3. “contain adequate warnings or instructions”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 954 So. 2d 1032 - Green v. Allendale Planting Co. · Guy v. Crown Equipment Corp.