Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite McCormack v. Hankscraft Company, 154 N.W.2d 488.

110 citing documents.

Patricia A. Jones, as Trustee for the Next of Kin of Kaitlyn M. Jones (deceased) and Personal Representative … Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Brady Co., (quotation omitted) (citing McCormack by McCormack v. Hankscraft Co. Inc., 278 Minn. 322, 332, ).
Doe 175 ex rel. Doe 175 v. Columbia Heights School District, ISD No. 13 842 N.W.2d 38 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Doe 175 ex rel. Doe 175 v. Columbia Heights School District, ISD No. 13 842 N.W.2d 38 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Four years later, the supreme court explained that the amended statute provides “that once a case has been properly brought before us on appeal we may, in our discretion, ‘review any other matter as the interests of justice may require.’ ” McCormack v. Hankscraft Co., 278 Minn. 322, 343 , (quoting Minn.Stat.
Trigger's Supper Club v. Sunridge Farms, Inc. 647 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
In Re Shigellosis Litigation 647 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Trigger's Supper Club v. Sunridge Farms, Inc. 647 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
The Minnesota Supreme Court adopted the concept of strict tort -liability against the manufacturer of a defective product in McCormack v. Hankscraft Co., 278 Minn. 322 ,.
In Re Shigellosis Litigation 647 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
The Minnesota Supreme Court adopted the concept of strict tort liability against the manufacturer of a defective product in McCormack v. Hankscraft Co., 278 Minn. 322, 333-34 , , 497-98 *6 (1967).
Marcon v. Kmart Corp. 573 N.W.2d 728 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Marcon v. Kmart Corp. 573 N.W.2d 728 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
McCormack v. Hankscraft Co., 278 Minn. 322, 333-34
Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. v. Nishika Ltd. 565 N.W.2d 16 Minn. 1997
Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. v. Nishika Ltd. 565 N.W.2d 16 Minn. 1997
Despite the promulgation of Restatement of Torts (Second) § 402A in 1965 — which we adopted in 1967, see McCormack v. Hankscraft Co., 278 Minn. 322, 337-40 , -501 (1967); see also Milbank Mut.
Sirek v. State, Department of Natural Resources 496 N.W.2d 807 Minn. 1993
Distinguished Sirek v. State, Department of Natural Resources 496 N.W.2d 807 Minn. 1993
See McCormack v. Hankscraft Co., 278 Minn. 322, 341, Brennan v. Minnesota, D. & W. Ry.
Drager Ex Rel. Gutzman v. Aluminum Industries Corp. 495 N.W.2d 879 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Drager Ex Rel. Gutzman v. Aluminum Industries Corp. 495 N.W.2d 879 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Unlike the plaintiff in McCormack v. Hankscraft Co., 278 Minn. 322, 326-27 , appellant was not injured by danger inherent to the product.
Harmon Contract Glazing, Inc. v. Libby-Owens-Ford Co. 493 N.W.2d 146 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Harmon Contract Glazing, Inc. v. Libby-Owens-Ford Co. 493 N.W.2d 146 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
McCormack v. Hankscraft Co., 278 Minn. 322, 338
Lloyd F. Smith Co. v. Den-Tal-Ez, Inc. 491 N.W.2d 11 Minn. 1992
Lloyd F. Smith Co. v. Den-Tal-Ez, Inc. 491 N.W.2d 11 Minn. 1992
When this court adopted strict liability for personal injury from a product defect, we said we were doing so because, where personal injury is involved, the warranty remedy with its restrictive requirements of privity and notice of breach “does not appeal to our sense of justice.” McCormack v. Hankscraft Co., 278 Minn. 322, 337
Johnson v. Southern Minnesota MacHinery Sales, Inc. 460 N.W.2d 68 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Johnson v. Southern Minnesota MacHinery Sales, Inc. 460 N.W.2d 68 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
See McCormack v. Hankscraft Co., Inc., 278 Minn. 322, 343 , -03 (1967) (overruling Satter).
Hapka v. Paquin Farms 458 N.W.2d 683 Minn. 1990
Hapka v. Paquin Farms 458 N.W.2d 683 Minn. 1990
McCormack v. Hankscraft Co., Inc., [ 278 Minn. 322 , ] supra.
Larson v. Dunn 449 N.W.2d 751 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Larson v. Dunn 449 N.W.2d 751 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
See, e.g., Hubbard v. United Press International, Inc., -39 (Minn.1983) (recognizing independent tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress); McCormack v. Hankscraft Co., 278 Minn. 322, 339-40 , , 500-01 (1967) (adopting theory of strict liability for product defects); R.A.P.
Kallio v. Ford Motor Co. 407 N.W.2d 92 Minn. 1987
Kallio v. Ford Motor Co. 407 N.W.2d 92 Minn. 1987
ortion of the release mechanism of a hydraulic bed dumptruck was superfluously long creating the defect); Busch v. Busch Constr., Inc., (plaintiff presented evidence that a turn signal's use of a plastic yoke inside of a locking steering column required a design allowing a greater clearance radius than the manufacturer’s design had allowed); McCormack v. Hankscraft Co., 278 Minn. 322 , (plaintiff presented evidence that the cover of a vaporizer should have been secured such that it would prevent
Germann v. F.L. Smithe MacHine Co. 395 N.W.2d 922 Minn. 1986
Germann v. F.L. Smithe MacHine Co. 395 N.W.2d 922 Minn. 1986
Penney Co., Clark v. Rental Equipment Co., 300 Minn. 420 , McCormack v. Hankscraft Co., 278 Minn. 322 , Lovejoy v. Minneapolis-Moline Power Implement Co., 248 Minn. 319 , 79 *
Kallio v. Ford Motor Co. 391 N.W.2d 860 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Kallio v. Ford Motor Co. 391 N.W.2d 860 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
See McCormack v. Hankscraft Co., 278 Minn. 322, 334-35 , -98 (1967).
MacBeth v. Mondry 392 N.W.2d 24 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
MacBeth v. Mondry 392 N.W.2d 24 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
McCormack v. Hankscraft Co., 278 Minn. 322 , -03 (1967).
Germann v. F.L. Smithe MacHine Co. 381 N.W.2d 503 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Germann v. F.L. Smithe MacHine Co. 381 N.W.2d 503 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Section 402A was adopted by the court in McCormack v. Hankscraft, 278 Minn. 322 , and provides: (1) One who sells any product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer or to his property is subject to liability for physical harm thereby caused to the ultimate user or consumer, or to his property, if (á) the seller is engaged in the business of
Crothers Ex Rel. Crothers v. Cohen 384 N.W.2d 562 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Crothers Ex Rel. Crothers v. Cohen 384 N.W.2d 562 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
McCormack v. Hankscraft Co., Inc., 278 Minn. 322, 336
Peppin v. W.H. Brady Co. 372 N.W.2d 369 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Peppin v. W.H. Brady Co. 372 N.W.2d 369 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
In McCormack v. Hankscraft Co., Inc., 278 Minn. 322 , the supreme court indicated that a manufacturer is “subject to liability for a failure to use reasonable care in the design of its product to any user * * * to protect against unreasonable risk of physical harm while the product is used for its intended purpose.” Id.
Paripovich v. Hayden-Murphy Equipment Co. 358 N.W.2d 67 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Paripovich v. Hayden-Murphy Equipment Co. 358 N.W.2d 67 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Thus, he has the burden of establishing that Hayden-Murphy supplied the defective equipment, see McCormack v. Hankscraft Co., Inc., 278 Minn. 322 , 338 n. 15, , 499 n. 15 (1967); Magnuson v. Rupp Manufacturing, Inc., 285 Minn. 32, 44 , and the proof must be such as to justify an inference of fact, not merely speculation or conjecture.
Rients v. International Harvester Co. 346 N.W.2d 359 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Rients v. International Harvester Co. 346 N.W.2d 359 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
McCormack v. Hankscraft Co., 278 Minn. 322, 338
Holm v. Sponco Mfg., Inc. 324 N.W.2d 207 Minn. 1982
Hudson v. Snyder Body, Inc. 326 N.W.2d 149 Minn. 1982
Holm v. Sponco Mfg., Inc. 324 N.W.2d 207 Minn. 1982
3 *213 In approving the doctrine of strict products liability in McCormack v. Hankscraft Co., 278 Minn. 322 , this court recognized that not only is the manufacturer in a better position than a consumer to bear economic loss and to redistribute it via the cost of his product, but he is also better able to appreciate and minimize the risk of injury through the production of safer goods.
Hudson v. Snyder Body, Inc. 326 N.W.2d 149 Minn. 1982
McCormack v. Hankscraft Co., 278 Minn. 322
Conover v. Northern States Power Co. 313 N.W.2d 397 Minn. 1981
Conover v. Northern States Power Co. 313 N.W.2d 397 Minn. 1981
We were confronted with much the same problem in McCormack v. Hankscraft Co., Inc., 278 Minn. 322, 343 , where we held: [Wjhere, as here, a conditional order granting a new trial is based in whole or in part upon the insufficiency of the evidence and such issue is also raised and determined on review of the order granting judgment n. o. v., we will, if we deem the interests of justice r
Superwood Corp. v. Siempelkamp Corp. 311 N.W.2d 159 Minn. 1981