Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1988–2009 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Indiana courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Miller v. Toddgreen2 sentences2009Miller v. Todd, 551 N.E.2d 1139, 1140 (Ind.1990). 1990However, even if Latimer stated the rule in Indiana on this point, the Indiana Supreme Court's decision in Miller v. Todd (1990), Ind., 551 N.E.2d 1139 , adopting the crashworthiness doctrine, has modified that rule. | 1 | 2 |
Camacho v. Honda Motor Co., Ltd.green2 sentences1990Camacho v. Honda Motor Co., 741 P.2d 1240, 1242-43 (Colo. 1987), cert. dismissed, 485 U.S. 901 , 108 S.Ct. 1067 , 99 L.Ed.2d 229 (1988); see also Nicolodi v. Harley-Davidson Motor Co. 370 So.2d 68, 70 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1979). 1988In Camacho v. Honda Motor Co. (1987), Colo., 741 P.2d 1240 , the majority of the court determined that the question posed under the crashworthiness doctrine is not whether the absence of crash bars on a motorey-cle is obviously unsafe, but rather whether the degree of inherent danger could or should have been significantly reduced. | 1 | 2 |
prod.liab.rep. (Cch) P 13,980 Patricia A. Pries v. Honda Motor Company, Limited, and American Honda Motor Company, Inc.green2 sentences2009See p. 424 (quoting Miller, 551 N.E.2d at 1143 ; Prices v. Honda Motor Co., Ltd., 31 F.3d 543, 546 (7th Cir.1994)). 2009See p. 424 (quoting Miller, 551 N.E.2d at 1143 ; Pries v. Honda Motor Co., Ltd., 31 F.3d 543, 546 (7th Cir.1994)). | 1 | 1 |
Nicolodi v. Harley-Davidson Motor Co.green2 sentences1990Camacho v. Honda Motor Co., 741 P.2d 1240, 1242-43 (Colo. *1141 1987), cert. dismissed, 485 U.S. 901 , 108 S.Ct. 1067 , 99 L.Ed.2d 229 (1988); see also Nicolodi v. Harley-Davidson Motor Co. 370 So.2d 68, 70 (Fla. Dist. 1990Camacho v. Honda Motor Co., 741 P.2d 1240, 1242-43 (Colo. 1987), cert. dismissed, 485 U.S. 901 , 108 S.Ct. 1067 , 99 L.Ed.2d 229 (1988); see also Nicolodi v. Harley-Davidson Motor Co. 370 So.2d 68, 70 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1979). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Barris v. Bob's Drag Chutes & Safety Equipment
green
2 sentences1989Barris v. Bob's Drag Chutes and Safety Equip., Inc. (3d Cir.1982), 685 F.2d 94 ." Id. at 1125-26. 1988Barris v. Bob's Drag Chutes & Safety Equip., Inc. (3d Cir.1982), 685 F.2d 94 . | 2 | 1988–1989 |
Helen L. Huff, Administratrix of the Estate of Jessee Huff, Deceased v. White Motor Corporation
green
2 sentences1989Huff v. White Motor Corp. (7th Cir.1977), 565 F.2d 104 . 1988Huff v. White Motor Corp. (7th Cir.1977), 565 F.2d 104 . | 2 | 1988–1989 |
Honda Motor Co. v. Camacho
green
2 sentences1990Camacho v. Honda Motor Co., 741 P.2d 1240, 1242-43 (Colo. 1987), cert. dismissed, 485 U.S. 901 , 108 S.Ct. 1067 , 99 L.Ed.2d 229 (1988); see also Nicolodi v. Harley-Davidson Motor Co. 370 So.2d 68, 70 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1979). 1990Camacho v. Honda Motor Co., 741 P.2d 1240, 1242-43 (Colo. 1987), cert. dismissed, 485 U.S. 901 , 108 S.Ct. 1067 , 99 L.Ed.2d 229 (1988); see also Nicolodi v. Harley-Davidson Motor Co. 370 So.2d 68, 70 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1979). | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Weil v. Chu
green
2 sentences1990Camacho v. Honda Motor Co., 741 P.2d 1240, 1242-43 (Colo. *1141 1987), cert. dismissed, 485 U.S. 901 , 108 S.Ct. 1067 , 99 L.Ed.2d 229 (1988); see also Nicolodi v. Harley-Davidson Motor Co. 370 So.2d 68, 70 (Fla. Dist. 1990Camacho v. Honda Motor Co., 741 P.2d 1240, 1242-43 (Colo. 1987), cert. dismissed, 485 U.S. 901 , 108 S.Ct. 1067 , 99 L.Ed.2d 229 (1988); see also Nicolodi v. Harley-Davidson Motor Co. 370 So.2d 68, 70 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1979). | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Miller v. Todd
green
1 sentence1989The first Indiana decision to come close to recognizing and adopting an enhanced injury cause of action was Miller v. Todd (1988), Ind.App., 518 N.E.2d 1124 , in which Judge Buchanan opined, as follows: "The crashworthiness doctrine recognizes that the intended use of a vehicle encompasses the inevitability of collisions and requires the manufacturer to design a vehicle reasonably safe for those foreseeable risks. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Laurie Delvaux v. Ford Motor Company
green
2 sentences1988Nor did the court in Delvaux v. Ford Motor Co. (7th Cir.1985), 764 F.2d 469 need to consider whether the crashworthiness doctrine imposed a duty on the manufacturer to install a roll bar "[slince the most obvious feature of a convertible is its lack of a roof, [and] dangers which the ordinary consumer would associate with that feature will not support a strict product liability cause of action...." Id. at 474 . 1988Nor did the court in Delvaux v. Ford Motor Co. (7th Cir.1985), 764 F.2d 469 need to consider whether the crashworthiness doctrine imposed a duty on the manufacturer to install a roll bar "[slince the most obvious feature of a convertible is its lack of a roof, [and] dangers which the ordinary consumer would associate with that feature will not support a strict product liability cause of action...." Id. at 474 . | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.