McFarlane v. Caterpillar, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(1) evidence tending to negate causes for the accident other than a defect in the car, and (2) evidence tending to show that the defendant-manufacturer introduced into the car whatever defect might have existed .... Proof that the product was new would warrant a jury inference that a defect, if there was one, existed at the time the product entered the stream of commerce.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Pappas v. Ford Motor Co. · 81 F. Supp. 2d 55 - Corcoran v. General Motors Corp.

2. “At a minimum, meeting this standard requires the plaintiff to offer evidence showing difficulties with a vehicle prior to, or at the time of, the accident and tending to negate causes other than a defect in the vehicle, including a “reasonably specific negation of driver error”. (citations omitted). We have found several factors relevant to this showing: the age of the vehicle, its service history and testimony as- to the possibility of alternative causes, (citations omitted). It is not enough for a plaintiff to prove that a mechanical defect was capable of causing the accident. In the absence of evidence that one possible explanation is more probable than another, the jury will not be allowed to speculate as to which actually caused it.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 81 F. Supp. 2d 55 - Corcoran v. General Motors Corp.

3. ““must consider all of the evidence offered by the parties,” mindful that “the question for us is not whether there was some evidence, but whether, in terms of ‘the actual quantum and quality of proof necessary to support liability’, there was sufficient evidence upon which a jury could properly base a verdict for the [plaintiff] ...” (citations omitted).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 81 F. Supp. 2d 55 - Corcoran v. General Motors Corp.