67 New York opinions name it 7 courts 1974–2025 6 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New York 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 |
|---|---|---|
Robinson v. Reed-Prentice Division of Package Machinery Co.green2 sentences1993Nevertheless, postsale modifications to a product do not defeat a products liability claim unless those modifications (a) rendered "a safe product defective” (Robinson v Reed-Prentice Div., supra, at 479); and (b) caused the injuries (Amatulli v Delhi Constr. 1993We agree with Supreme Court’s conclusion that there are questions of fact whether the double facer was defective when sold or whether the removal of the safety guard rendered an otherwise safe machine defective. "[P]ostsale modifications to a product do not defeat a products liability claim unless those modifications (a) rendered 'a safe product defective’ (Robinson v Reed-Prentice Div., [ 49 NY2d 471 ], 479) and (b) caused the injuries (Amatulli v Delhi Constr. | 4 | 7 |
Codling v. Pagliagreen2 sentences2007The plaintiff need only prove that the product was defective as a result of either a manufacturing flaw, improper design, or a failure to provide adequate warnings regarding the use of the product (see Godoy v Abamaster of Miami, supra), and that the defect was a substantial factor in bringing about the injury (see Codling v Paglia, 32 NY2d 330 [1973]). “[U]nder a doctrine of strict products liability, the manufacturer of a defective product is liable to any person injured or damaged if the defect was a substantial factor in bringing about his injury or damages; provided: (1) that at the time 2007The plaintiff need only prove that the product was defective as a result of either a manufacturing flaw, improper design, or a failure to provide adequate warnings regarding the use of the product (see Godoy v Abamaster of Miami, supra), and that the defect was a substantial factor in bringing about the injury (see Codling v Paglia, 32 NY2d 330 [1973]). “[U]nder a doctrine of strict products liability, the manufacturer of a defective product is liable to any person injured or damaged if the defect was a substantial factor in bringing about his injury or damages; provided: (1) that at the time | 2 | 16 |
Lamey v. Foleygreen2 sentences2012However, a modification will defeat a products liability claim only where it “(a) rendered ‘a safe product defective’ . . . ; and (b) caused the injuries” (Lamey v Foley, 188 AD2d 157, 168 [1993]; see generally Robinson v Reed-Prentice Div. of Package Mach. 2012However, a modification will defeat a products liability claim only where it “(a) rendered ‘a safe product defective’ . . . ; and (b) caused the injuries” (Lamey v Foley, 188 AD2d 157, 168 [1993]; see generally Robinson v Reed-Prentice Div. of Package Mach. | 2 | 6 |
Voss v. Black & Decker Manufacturing Co.green2 sentences2016Co., 59 NY2d 102, 106 [1983]). 2011Co., 59 NY2d 102, 106-107 [1983]). | 2 | 4 |
Haynes v. Estate of Sol Goldmangreen2 sentences2021Otis established prima facie entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the strict products liability claim by submitting evidence that the elevator door at issue was not defective (s ee Versace v 1540 Broadway L.P. , 148 AD3d 483 [1st Dept 2017]; see also Haynes v Estate of Goldman , 62 AD3d 519, 521 [1st Dept 2009]). 2021Otis established prima facie entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the strict products liability claim by submitting evidence that the elevator door at issue was not defective (s ee Versace v 1540 Broadway L.P. , 148 AD3d 483 [1st Dept 2017]; see also Haynes v Estate of Goldman , 62 AD3d 519, 521 [1st Dept 2009]). | 2 | 2 |
Wengenroth v. Formula Equipment Leasing, Inc.green2 sentences2014Leasing, Inc., 11 AD3d 677, 680 [2004]). 2014Leasing, Inc., 11 AD3d 677, 680 [2004]). | 2 | 2 |
Steuhl v. Home Therapy Equipment, Inc.green2 sentences2014Furthermore, the strict products liability claim cannot be said to be plainly lacking in merit as plaintiffs submitted an affidavit from a certified safety professional who opined that the slippery surface of the excavator was unreasonably dangerous, described why and explained how it could have been made safer (see Steuhl v Home Therapy Equip., Inc., 51 AD3d 1101, 1104 [2008]; Wengenroth v Formula Equip. 2014Furthermore, the strict products liability claim cannot be said to be plainly lacking in merit as plaintiffs submitted an affidavit from a certified safety professional who opined that the slippery surface of the excavator was unreasonably dangerous, described why and explained how it could have been made safer (see Steuhl v Home Therapy Equip., Inc., 51 AD3d 1101, 1104 [2008]; Wengenroth v Formula Equip. | 2 | 2 |
Micallef v. Miehle Co.green2 sentences1977In Codling v Paglia ( 32 NY2d 330 ), the court stated that, provided three specified conditions were met, "under a doctrine of strict products liability, the manufacturer of a defective product is liable to any person injured or damaged if the defect was a substantial factor in bringing about his injury” (emphasis supplied; p 342; see, also, Micallef vMiehle Co., Div. of Miehle-Gross Dexter, 39 NY2d 376 ). 1977Corp., 33 NY2d 117 .) Inasmuch as this doctrine recognizes a discretely separate and independent cause of action, distinguishable from an action based on warranty (Micallef v Miehle Co., 39 NY2d 376 ), those authorities imposing liability on retailers on implied warranty theories, except for lending support generally to the premise that courts need not be reluctant to do so here, are inconclusive on the point of whether a retailer logically can be held liable under the strict products liability doctrine. | 1 | 6 |
Mercedes v. 248 JD Food Corp.green2 sentences2025Inc. , 14 NY3d 535, 542 [2010].) However, since the focus of a strict products liability claim is on the condition of the product when it left the defendant's control, a manufacturer may establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment by demonstrating that a third party performed a substantial modification [*9]on an otherwise safe product that then caused plaintiff's injury. ( Hoover v New Holland, Inc. , 23 NY3d 41, 56 [2014].) As Hoover explains, in such a case, the moving defendant must make the same showing required to prevail on any design defect: that the product was "not defective" wh 2025Inc. , 14 NY3d 535, 542 [2010].) However, since the focus of a strict products liability claim is on the condition of the product when it left the defendant's control, a manufacturer may establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment by demonstrating that a third party performed a substantial modification [*9]on an otherwise safe product that then caused plaintiff's injury. ( Hoover v New Holland, Inc. , 23 NY3d 41, 56 [2014].) As Hoover explains, in such a case, the moving defendant must make the same showing required to prevail on any design defect: that the product was "not defective" wh | 1 | 1 |
Reis v. Volvo Cars of North America, Inc.green1 sentence2025A defendant establishes its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment dismissing a strict products liability claim based on a failure to warn by demonstrating either that the product's warnings were adequate or that any allegedly inadequate warnings were not a proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries, i.e., that additional or different warnings would not have deterred the product's misuse ( see Reis v Volvo Cars of N. Am., Inc. , 73 AD3d 420, 423 [1st Dept 2010]; Mulhall v Hannafin , 45 AD3d 55, 58 [1st Dept 2007]; Kosta v WDF, Inc. , 204 AD3d 900, 902 [2d Dept 2022]). | 1 | 1 |
Kosta v. WDF, Inc.green1 sentence2025A defendant establishes its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment dismissing a strict products liability claim based on a failure to warn by demonstrating either that the product's warnings were adequate or that any allegedly inadequate warnings were not a proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries, i.e., that additional or different warnings would not have deterred the product's misuse ( see Reis v Volvo Cars of N. Am., Inc. , 73 AD3d 420, 423 [1st Dept 2010]; Mulhall v Hannafin , 45 AD3d 55, 58 [1st Dept 2007]; Kosta v WDF, Inc. , 204 AD3d 900, 902 [2d Dept 2022]). | 1 | 1 |
Morales v. City of New Yorkgreen1 sentence2025A defendant establishes its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment dismissing a strict products liability claim based on design defect by demonstrating either that the subject product was reasonably safe for its intended use or that the plaintiff's actions constituted the sole proximate cause of the injuries ( see Yun Tung Chow v Reckitt & Colman, Inc. , 17 NY3d 29, 33-34 [2011]; Morales v City of New York , 193 AD3d 923, 926 [2d Dept 2021]). | 1 | 1 |
Mulhall v. Hannafingreen1 sentence2025A defendant establishes its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment dismissing a strict products liability claim based on a failure to warn by demonstrating either that the product's warnings were adequate or that any allegedly inadequate warnings were not a proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries, i.e., that additional or different warnings would not have deterred the product's misuse ( see Reis v Volvo Cars of N. Am., Inc. , 73 AD3d 420, 423 [1st Dept 2010]; Mulhall v Hannafin , 45 AD3d 55, 58 [1st Dept 2007]; Kosta v WDF, Inc. , 204 AD3d 900, 902 [2d Dept 2022]). | 1 | 1 |
Yun Tung Chow v. Reckitt & Colman, Inc.green1 sentence2025A defendant establishes its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment dismissing a strict products liability claim based on design defect by demonstrating either that the subject product was reasonably safe for its intended use or that the plaintiff's actions constituted the sole proximate cause of the injuries ( see Yun Tung Chow v Reckitt & Colman, Inc. , 17 NY3d 29, 33-34 [2011]; Morales v City of New York , 193 AD3d 923, 926 [2d Dept 2021]). | 1 | 1 |
Hoover v. New Holland North America, Inc.green2 sentences2025Inc. , 14 NY3d 535, 542 [2010].) However, since the focus of a strict products liability claim is on the condition of the product when it left the defendant's control, a manufacturer may establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment by demonstrating that a third party performed a substantial modification [*9]on an otherwise safe product that then caused plaintiff's injury. ( Hoover v New Holland, Inc. , 23 NY3d 41, 56 [2014].) As Hoover explains, in such a case, the moving defendant must make the same showing required to prevail on any design defect: that the product was "not defective" wh 2025Inc. , 14 NY3d 535, 542 [2010].) However, since the focus of a strict products liability claim is on the condition of the product when it left the defendant's control, a manufacturer may establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment by demonstrating that a third party performed a substantial modification [*9]on an otherwise safe product that then caused plaintiff's injury. ( Hoover v New Holland, Inc. , 23 NY3d 41, 56 [2014].) As Hoover explains, in such a case, the moving defendant must make the same showing required to prevail on any design defect: that the product was "not defective" wh | 1 | 1 |
Adams v. Genie Industries, Inc.green2 sentences2025Inc. , 14 NY3d 535, 542 [2010].) However, since the focus of a strict products liability claim is on the condition of the product when it left the defendant's control, a manufacturer may establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment by demonstrating that a third party performed a substantial modification [*9]on an otherwise safe product that then caused plaintiff's injury. ( Hoover v New Holland, Inc. , 23 NY3d 41, 56 [2014].) As Hoover explains, in such a case, the moving defendant must make the same showing required to prevail on any design defect: that the product was "not defective" wh 2025Inc. , 14 NY3d 535, 542 [2010].) However, since the focus of a strict products liability claim is on the condition of the product when it left the defendant's control, a manufacturer may establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment by demonstrating that a third party performed a substantial modification [*9]on an otherwise safe product that then caused plaintiff's injury. ( Hoover v New Holland, Inc. , 23 NY3d 41, 56 [2014].) As Hoover explains, in such a case, the moving defendant must make the same showing required to prevail on any design defect: that the product was "not defective" wh | 1 | 1 |
Reed v. Watts Water Tech., Inc.green1 sentence2024Thus, a party outside the manufacturing, selling or distribution chain cannot be held liable on a strict products liability claim (Reed v Watts Water Tech., Inc., 212 AD3d 740, 741 [2d Dept 2023]). | 1 | 1 |
Abulhasan v. Uniroyal-Goodrich Tire Co.green1 sentence2024“On a motion for summary judgment, a defendant who asserts that it did not manufacture the allegedly defective product has the initial burden of establishing, as a matter of law, that it did not do so” (Abulhasan v Uniroyal-Goodrich Tire Co., 14 AD3d 900, 901 [3d Dept 2005]). | 1 | 1 |
McArdle v. Navistar International Corp.green1 sentence2024Corp., 293 AD2d 931, 932 [3d Dept 2002]). | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Torresgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Halloran v. Virginia Chemicals Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Ramos v. Howard Industries, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Sideris v. Simon A. Rented Services Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Ideal Steel Supply Corp. v. Beilgreen | 1 | 1 |
| NA KERSON CO., INC. v. Shaynegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Matera v. Catanzanogreen | 1 | 1 |
| Payette v. Rockefeller Universitygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Preston v. Peter Luger Enterprises, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Taylor v. Smithkline Beecham Corp.green | 1 | 1 |
| Godoy v. Abamaster of Miami, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| cluster 741153green | 1 | 1 |
| National Gypsum Co. v. Continental Brands Corp.green | 1 | 1 |
| Carron v. Granpregreen | 1 | 1 |
| Dick v. Samaritan Hospitalgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Fries v. Sid Tool Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| Caffaro v. Traynagreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Velez v. Craine & Clark Lumber Corp.
green
2 sentences1981Corp., 33 NY2d 117 ) and vendors of defective products (Mead v Warner Pruyn Div., Finch Pruyn Sales, 57 AD2d 340 , supra) as well.” It is the opinion of this court that the Kirby and Mead decisions correctly analyzed the rationale underlying the doctrine of strict products liability, and appropriately applied that doctrine to find sellers, distributors and retailers liable regardless of control over or access to the defective product. 1977Corp. ( 33 NY2d 117, 121 ), the Court of Appeals ruled that a case tried before the strict products liability rule was enunciated in Codling v Paglia ( 32 NY2d 330 ), should be "remitted for a new trial because the charge to the jury was erroneous under Codling , when viewed with the benefit of hindsight”. | 5 | 1977–1981 |
Queensbury Union Free School District v. Jim Walter Corp.
green
2 sentences1981Under the strict products liability doctrine as it exists in New York (see Codling v Paglia, 32 NY2d 330 ), defendants can be manufacturers, distributors, retailers, processors and makers of component parts who sell the product alleged to have caused injury (1 PJI 2:141), in essence, those responsible for placing the defective product in the marketplace (Queensbury Union Free School Dist. v Walter Corp., 91 Misc 2d 804 ).’ “1. 1981Under the strict products liability doctrine as it exists in New York (see Codling v Paglia, 32 NY2d 330 ), defendants can be manufacturers, distributors, retailers, processors and makers of component parts who sell the product alleged to have caused injury (1 PJI 2:141), in essence, those responsible for placing the defective product in the marketplace (Queensbury Union Free School Dist. v Walter Corp., 91 Misc 2d 804 ).” 1 Abell relies on Wellman v Supreme Farmstead Equip. ( 100 Misc 2d 956 ), a case which is factually analogous to the situation at bar. | 3 | 1978–1981 |
Versace v. 1540 Broadway L.P.
neutral
2 sentences2021Otis established prima facie entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the strict products liability claim by submitting evidence that the elevator door at issue was not defective (s ee Versace v 1540 Broadway L.P. , 148 AD3d 483 [1st Dept 2017]; see also Haynes v Estate of Goldman , 62 AD3d 519, 521 [1st Dept 2009]). 2021Otis established prima facie entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the strict products liability claim by submitting evidence that the elevator door at issue was not defective (s ee Versace v 1540 Broadway L.P. , 148 AD3d 483 [1st Dept 2017]; see also Haynes v Estate of Goldman , 62 AD3d 519, 521 [1st Dept 2009]). | 2 | 2021–2021 |
Amatulli v. Delhi Construction Corp.
green
2 sentences1993Corp., 77 NY2d 525, 532 ). 1993Corp., 77 NY2d 525, 532 )” (Lamey v Foley 188 AD2d 157, 168 ). | 2 | 1993–1993 |
Bolm v. Triumph Corp.
green
2 sentences1986Co., 59 NY2d 102, 106 , supra; Bolm v Triumph Corp., 71 AD2d 429, 433 ). 1981Co. , 49 N.Y.2d 471, 479 , supra; Micallef v Miehle Co., Div. of Miehle-Goss Dexter , 39 N.Y.2d 376, 386 , supra; Bolm v Triumph Corp. , 33 N.Y.2d 151, 157-158 , supra; Singer v Walker , 32 N.Y.2d 786 , affg 39 AD2d 90, 94 ; Lancaster Silo & Block Co. v Northern Propane Gas Co. , 75 AD2d 55, 62 , supra; Bolm v Triumph Corp. , 71 AD2d 429, 435 , supra; Biss v Tenneco, Inc. , 64 AD2d 204, 206-207 , supra; Vinogradov v Clicquot Club Co. , 55 AD2d 489, 491 ). | 2 | 1981–1986 |
Lancaster Silo & Block Co. v. Northern Propane Gas Co.
green
2 sentences1986With the acquiescence of GMC, the court properly charged the jury under the doctrine of strict products liability and submitted to it interrogatories in keeping with a strict products liability claim (see, Lancaster Silo & Block Co. v Northern Propane Gas Co., 75 AD2d 55, 63 ; see also, Gold-stein v Brogan Cadillac Olsmobile Corp., 90 AD2d 512 ; PJI 2:141). 1981Co. , 49 N.Y.2d 471, 479 , supra; Micallef v Miehle Co., Div. of Miehle-Goss Dexter , 39 N.Y.2d 376, 386 , supra; Bolm v Triumph Corp. , 33 N.Y.2d 151, 157-158 , supra; Singer v Walker , 32 N.Y.2d 786 , affg 39 AD2d 90, 94 ; Lancaster Silo & Block Co. v Northern Propane Gas Co. , 75 AD2d 55, 62 , supra; Bolm v Triumph Corp. , 71 AD2d 429, 435 , supra; Biss v Tenneco, Inc. , 64 AD2d 204, 206-207 , supra; Vinogradov v Clicquot Club Co. , 55 AD2d 489, 491 ). | 2 | 1981–1986 |
Mead v. Warner Pruyn Division
green
2 sentences1981Corp., 33 NY2d 117 ) and vendors of defective products (Mead v Warner Pruyn Div., Finch Pruyn Sales, 57 AD2d 340 , supra) as well.” It is the opinion of this court that the Kirby and Mead decisions correctly analyzed the rationale underlying the doctrine of strict products liability, and appropriately applied that doctrine to find sellers, distributors and retailers liable regardless of control over or access to the defective product. 1981Corp., 33 NY2d 117 ) and vendors of defective products (Mead v Warner Pruyn Div., Finch Pruyn Sales, 57 AD2d 340 , supra) as well. . | 2 | 1981–1981 |
Bolm v. Triumph Corp.
green
2 sentences1981Co. , 49 N.Y.2d 471, 479 , supra; Micallef v Miehle Co., Div. of Miehle-Goss Dexter , 39 N.Y.2d 376, 386 , supra; Bolm v Triumph Corp. , 33 N.Y.2d 151, 157-158 , supra; Singer v Walker , 32 N.Y.2d 786 , affg 39 AD2d 90, 94 ; Lancaster Silo & Block Co. v Northern Propane Gas Co. , 75 AD2d 55, 62 , supra; Bolm v Triumph Corp. , 71 AD2d 429, 435 , supra; Biss v Tenneco, Inc. , 64 AD2d 204, 206-207 , supra; Vinogradov v Clicquot Club Co. , 55 AD2d 489, 491 ). 1981Co., 49 NY2d 471, 479 , supra; Micallef v Miehle Co., Div. of Miehle-Goss Dexter, 39 NY2d 376, 386 , supra; Bolm v Triumph Corp., 33 NY2d 151, 157-158 , supra; Singer v Walker, 32 NY2d 786 , affg 39 AD2d 90, 94 ; Lancaster Silo & Block Co. v Northern Propane Gas Co., 75 AD2d 55, 62 , supra; Bolm v Triumph Corp., 71 AD2d 429, 435 , supra; Biss v Tenneco, Inc., 64 AD2d 204, 206-207 , supra; Vinogradov v Clicquot Club Co., 55 AD2d 489, 491 ). | 2 | 1977–1981 |
MacPherson v. . Buick Motor Co.
green
2 sentences1974In Codling v. Paglia (32 N Y 2d 330, 335, supra) the court wrote, inter alia: “ We hold that today the manufacturer of a defective product may be held liable to an innocent bystander, without proof of negligence, for damages sustained in consequence of the defect ”, and stated (p. 342): “ We accordingly hold that, under a doctrine of strict products liability, the manufacturer of a defective product is liable to any person injured or damaged if the defect was a substantial factor in bringing about his injury or damages; provided: (1) that at the time of the occurrence the product is being used 1974I read Codling as having removed the remaining “ filiar ” from the beleaguered citadel of privity, thus completing the trend in New York law toward, extending to “ any ” person injured by a defective product the full benefits of the express and implied warranty protection contained in the Uniform Commercial Code, provided the test above referred to is met (cf. MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co., 217 N. Y. 382 ; Turner v. Edison Stor. | 2 | 1974–1974 |
Wojcik v. Empire Forklift, Inc.
green
1 sentence2025Specifically, "[rjhe implied warranty of merchant bility is a guarantee by the seller that its goods are fit for the intended purpose for which they are us d and that they will pass in the trade without objection" (Wojcik v Empire Forklift, Inc., 14 ;\ 3d 63, 66, 783 NYS2d 698 [3d Dept 2004] [quotatio n marks :md citations omitted]). 1\ claim u dcr the implied warranty o f merchantability is not identical to a products liability claim. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Kalik v. Allis-Chalmers Corp.
green
1 sentence2015Citing section 402A, the Supreme Court of Florida found no liability under the plaintiff’s strict products liability claim holding that dismantling is not an intended use of a product (id. at 1262). 2 In Kalik v Allis-Chalmers Corp. ( 658 F Supp 631 [WD Pa 1987]), the court also cited section 402A in holding that “the dismantling and processing of junk electrical components was not a reasonably foreseeable use of [General Electric Company’s] product” (id. at 635). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Tortoriello v. Bally Case, Inc. green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| Speller v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. green | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| Garcia v. Woodgrove Sales, Inc. green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Denny v. Ford Motor Co. green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Cooney v. Osgood Machinery, Inc. green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| Carrillo v. ACF Industries, Inc. green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| Bocre Leasing Corp. v. General Motors Corp. green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| Employee Relations Associates, Inc. v. Xperius, Inc. green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| Cargo Partner Ag v. Albatrans, Inc. And Chase, Leavitt (Customhouse Brokers) Inc. green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| Rachlin v. Volvo Cars of North America, Inc. green | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| Roberts v. MacFarland Construction Companies green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| Cubito v. Kreisberg green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| Sternbach v. Cornell University green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| Marrero v. Marsico green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| Colonno v. Executive I Associates green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| Cubito v. Kreisberg green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| Porter v. LSB Industries, Inc. green | 1 | 1997–1997 |
| Holdorf v. Oneonta Urban Renewal Agency green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| Winckel v. Atlantic Rentals & Sales, Inc. green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| Lowe v. Ingui neutral | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| Dash v. Dash green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| Randy Knitwear, Inc. v. American Cyanamid Co. green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| Smith v. Johnson Products Co. green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| Danielenko v. Kinney Rent a Car, Inc. green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| Wiseman v. American Motors Sales Corp. green | 1 | 1987–1987 |
| Scott v. General Motors Corp. green | 1 | 1987–1987 |
| Pole v. Frame Chevrolet, Inc. green | 1 | 1987–1987 |
| Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc. green | 1 | 1986–1986 |
| Barr v. County of Albany green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
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.