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.
6 Connecticut opinions name it 3 courts 2002–2019 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Connecticut 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 |
|---|---|---|
Potter v. Chicago Pneumatic Tool Co.green2 sentences2012The plaintiff claims that the court erred “by holding that under the modified consumer expectation test of Potter v. Chicago Pneumatic Tool Co., 241 Conn. 199 , [ 694 A.2d 1319 ] (1997), as applied to the particular facts of this case, an ordinary consumer cannot form his or her own expectations of the safety of a motor vehicle’s front driver’s side airbag. ” Moreover, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly held that he could not prove that the defendants’ product was defective without the use of expert testimony. 2012The plaintiff claims that the court erred “by holding that under the modified consumer expectation test of Potter v. Chicago Pneumatic Tool Co., 241 Conn. 199 , [ 694 A.2d 1319 ] (1997), as applied to the particular facts of this case, an ordinary consumer cannot form his or her own expectations of the safety of a motor vehicle’s front driver’s side airbag. ” Moreover, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly held that he could not prove that the defendants’ product was defective without the use of expert testimony. | 1 | 3 |
White v. Mazda Motor of America, Inc.green2 sentences2019Therefore, "[t]o establish the defect, the plaintiff's case required expert testimony on [the product] design and manufacture, as well as the feasibility of an alternative design." Id., at 203-204, 136 A.3d 1232 ; see White v. Mazda Motor of America, Inc ., 139 Conn. App. 39 , 49, 54 A.3d 643 (2012) ("[a]lthough it is true that an ordinary consumer may, under certain circumstances, be able to form expectations as to the safety of a product ... [our courts] nonetheless consistently have held that expert testimony is required when the question involved goes beyond the field of the ordinary knowl 2019Therefore, "[t]o establish the defect, the plaintiff's case required expert testimony on [the product] design and manufacture, as well as the feasibility of an alternative design." Id., at 203-204, 136 A.3d 1232 ; see White v. Mazda Motor of America, Inc ., 139 Conn. App. 39 , 49, 54 A.3d 643 (2012) ("[a]lthough it is true that an ordinary consumer may, under certain circumstances, be able to form expectations as to the safety of a product ... [our courts] nonetheless consistently have held that expert testimony is required when the question involved goes beyond the field of the ordinary knowl | 1 | 1 |
Food & Drug Administration v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.green2 sentences2016See Food & Drug Administration v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120 , 136–37, 120 S. Ct. 1291 , 146 L. 2016See Food & Drug Administration v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120 , 136–37, 120 S. Ct. 1291 , 146 L. | 1 | 1 |
Soule v. General Motors Corp.green2 sentences2002See, Soule v. General Motors Corp ., 8 Cal.4th 548 , 567 , 882 P.2d 298 , CT Page 11087 34 Cal.Rptr.2d 607 (1994)." Potter , supra at 221-222. "[I]t is the function of the trial court to determine whether an instruction based on the ordinary consumer expectation test or the modified consumer expectation test, or both, is appropriate in light of the evidence presented. 2002See, Soule v. General Motors Corp ., 8 Cal.4th 548 , 567 , 882 P.2d 298 , CT Page 11087 34 Cal.Rptr.2d 607 (1994)." Potter , supra at 221-222. "[I]t is the function of the trial court to determine whether an instruction based on the ordinary consumer expectation test or the modified consumer expectation test, or both, is appropriate in light of the evidence presented. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Wright v. Brooke Group Ltd.
green
1 sentence2016Although the modified test asks the jury to weigh various factors through the ultimate lens of the consumer’s expecta- tions, as a functional and practical matter that weighing process supplants the definition in comment (i) of unreasonably dangerous.19 Cf. Wright v. Brooke Group Ltd., 652 N.W.2d 159 , 169–70 (Iowa 2002) (concluding that comment [i] to § 402A does not apply after court adopted risk-utility test). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Connecticut v. Porter
green
2 sentences2012Because we conclude that the court improperly granted the motion for a directed verdict in favor of the defendants on the ground that it erred in striking all of Ebersole’s testimony, and precluding any further testimony from him, and the issue may not arise on retrial, it is unnecessary for us to address the issue of which test applies to the issues in this case. 9 Essentially, the defendants contend that the court has a general gatekeeping function that “requires it to scrutinize proffered expert testimony of *429 dubious reliability.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In support of that a 2012Because we conclude that the court improperly granted the motion for a directed verdict in favor of the defendants on the ground that it erred in striking all of Ebersole’s testimony, and precluding any further testimony from him, and the issue may not arise on retrial, it is unnecessary for us to address the issue of which test applies to the issues in this case. 9 Essentially, the defendants contend that the court has a general gatekeeping function that “requires it to scrutinize proffered expert testimony of *429 dubious reliability.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In support of that a | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Practice Management Information Corp. v. American Medical Ass'n
green
1 sentence2012Because we conclude that the court improperly granted the motion for a directed verdict in favor of the defendants on the ground that it erred in striking all of Ebersole’s testimony, and precluding any further testimony from him, and the issue may not arise on retrial, it is unnecessary for us to address the issue of which test applies to the issues in this case. 9 Essentially, the defendants contend that the court has a general gatekeeping function that “requires it to scrutinize proffered expert testimony of *429 dubious reliability.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In support of that a | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Remeta v. Stovall
green
1 sentence2012Because we conclude that the court improperly granted the motion for a directed verdict in favor of the defendants on the ground that it erred in striking all of Ebersole’s testimony, and precluding any further testimony from him, and the issue may not arise on retrial, it is unnecessary for us to address the issue of which test applies to the issues in this case. 9 Essentially, the defendants contend that the court has a general gatekeeping function that “requires it to scrutinize proffered expert testimony of *429 dubious reliability.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In support of that a | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Lovilia Coal Co. v. Harvey
green
1 sentence2012Because we conclude that the court improperly granted the motion for a directed verdict in favor of the defendants on the ground that it erred in striking all of Ebersole’s testimony, and precluding any further testimony from him, and the issue may not arise on retrial, it is unnecessary for us to address the issue of which test applies to the issues in this case. 9 Essentially, the defendants contend that the court has a general gatekeeping function that “requires it to scrutinize proffered expert testimony of *429 dubious reliability.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In support of that a | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.