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 Iowa opinions name it 1 courts 1980–2014 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Iowa 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 |
|---|---|---|
Barker v. Lull Engineering Co.green2 sentences1994The Chown court’s definition of the unreasonably dangerous element is enlightening: In a design case, the risk-utility analysis involves the balancing of “the gravity of the danger posed by the challenged design, the likelihood that such danger would occur, the mechanical feasibility of a safer alternative design, the financial cost of an improved design, and the adverse consequences to the product and to the consumer that would result from an alternative design.” Chown, 297 N.W.2d at 220 -21 (quoting Barker v. Lull Eng’g Co., 20 Cal.3d 413 , 143 Cal.Rptr. 225, 237 , 573 P.2d 443, 455 (1978) ( 1994The Chown court’s definition of the unreasonably dangerous element is enlightening: In a design case, the risk-utility analysis involves the balancing of “the gravity of the danger posed by the challenged design, the likelihood that such danger would occur, the mechanical feasibility of a safer alternative design, the financial cost of an improved design, and the adverse consequences to the product and to the consumer that would result from an alternative design.” Chown, 297 N.W.2d at 220 -21 (quoting Barker v. Lull Eng’g Co., 20 Cal.3d 413 , 143 Cal.Rptr. 225, 237 , 573 P.2d 443, 455 (1978) ( | 2 | 2 |
Back v. Wickes Corp.green1 sentence1980See Back v. Wickes Corp.,- Mass. -, 378 N.E.2d 964, 970 (1978). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Iowa. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Wright v. Brooke Group Ltd.
green
2 sentences2009Therefore, Wright adopted a standard of risk-utility analysis, which incorporates a consideration of reasonableness, for design defect claims, 1 but chose to “label a claim based on a defective product design as a design defect claim without reference to strict liability or negligence.” Id. at 169 . 2009Therefore, Wright adopted a standard of risk-utility analysis, which incorporates a consideration of reasonableness, for design defect claims, 1 but chose to “label a claim based on a defective product design as a design defect claim without reference to strict liability or negligence.” Id. at 169 . | 3 | 2009–2014 |
Lovick v. Wil-Rich
green
1 sentence2002As we noted in Lovick , the Products Restatement has essentially “dropped the consumer expectation test traditionally used in the strict liability analysis and adopted a risk-utility analysis traditionally found in the negligence standard.” Lov-ick, 588 N.W.2d at 698 ; accord Products Restatement § 2 cmt. n, at 36 (“Regardless of the doctrinal label attached to a particular claim, design and warning claims rest on a risk-utility assessment.”); Owen, 49 S.C. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Chown v. USM Corp.
green
2 sentences1994The Chown court’s definition of the unreasonably dangerous element is enlightening: In a design case, the risk-utility analysis involves the balancing of “the gravity of the danger posed by the challenged design, the likelihood that such danger would occur, the mechanical feasibility of a safer alternative design, the financial cost of an improved design, and the adverse consequences to the product and to the consumer that would result from an alternative design.” Chown, 297 N.W.2d at 220 -21 (quoting Barker v. Lull Eng’g Co., 20 Cal.3d 413 , 143 Cal.Rptr. 225, 237 , 573 P.2d 443, 455 (1978) ( 1994The Chown court's definition of the unreasonably dangerous element is enlightening: In a design case, the risk-utility analysis involves the balancing of "the gravity of the danger posed by the challenged design, the likelihood that such danger would occur, the mechanical feasibility of a safer alternative design, the financial cost of an improved design, and the adverse consequences to the product and to the consumer that would result from an alternative design." Chown, 297 N.W.2d at 220 -21 (quoting Barker v. Lull Eng'g Co., 20 Cal.3d 413 , 143 Cal.Rptr. 225, 237 , 573 P.2d 443, 455 (1978) ( | 1 | 1994–1994 |
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.