Cited by

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

110 citing documents.

Superwood Corp. v. Siempelkamp Corp. 311 N.W.2d 159 Minn. 1981
Strict products liability was adopted by this court in McCormack v. Hankscraft Co., 278 Minn. 322
Allied Aviation Fueling Co. of Minnesota v. Dover Corp. 287 N.W.2d 657 Minn. 1980
Allied Aviation Fueling Co. of Minnesota v. Dover Corp. 287 N.W.2d 657 Minn. 1980
See McCormack v. Hankscraft Co. Inc., 278 Minn. 822 , Magnuson v. Rupp Manufacturing Inc., 285 Minn. 32 , Farr v. Armstrong Rubber Co., 288 Minn. 83
Cairl v. City of St. Paul 268 N.W.2d 908 Minn. 1978
Cairl v. City of St. Paul 268 N.W.2d 908 Minn. 1978
697 , 377 P.2d 897 (1963); McCormick v. Hankscraft Co., 278 Minn. 322
Bigham v. J. C. Penney Co. 268 N.W.2d 892 Minn. 1978
Bigham v. J. C. Penney Co. 268 N.W.2d 892 Minn. 1978
Clark v. Rental Equipment Co. Inc., 300 Minn. 420 , McCormack v. Hankscraft Co. Inc., 278 Minn. 322 , Lovejoy v. Minneapolis-Moline Power Implement Co., 248 Minn. 319
Busch v. Busch Construction, Inc. 262 N.W.2d 377 Minn. 1977
Busch v. Busch Construction, Inc. 262 N.W.2d 377 Minn. 1977
Cf. McCormack v. Hankscraft Co. Inc., 278 Minn. 322, 338 , and Farr v. Armstrong Rubber Co., 288 Minn. 83
Durfee v. Rod Baxter Imports, Inc. 262 N.W.2d 349 Minn. 1977
Durfee v. Rod Baxter Imports, Inc. 262 N.W.2d 349 Minn. 1977
McCormack v. Hankscraft Co. Inc., 278 Minn. 322, 337 , Beck v. Spindler, 256 Minn. 543, 557
O'LAUGHLIN v. Minnesota Natural Gas Co. 253 N.W.2d 826 Minn. 1977
O'LAUGHLIN v. Minnesota Natural Gas Co. 253 N.W.2d 826 Minn. 1977
McCormack v. Hankscraft Co., Inc., 278 Minn. 322 , .” (Italics supplied.)
STATE DEPT. OF PUBLIC SAFETY v. Ogg 246 N.W.2d 560 Minn. 1976
STATE DEPT. OF PUBLIC SAFETY v. Ogg 246 N.W.2d 560 Minn. 1976
Our review may be undertaken by certiorari * * * or it may be by discretionary use of the ordinary appeals procedures, as in McCormack v. Hankscraft Co. Inc. 278 Minn. 322
Milbank Mutual Insurance v. Proksch 244 N.W.2d 105 Minn. 1976
Milbank Mutual Insurance v. Proksch 244 N.W.2d 105 Minn. 1976
See, McCormack v. Hankscraft Co. Inc. 278 Minn. 322 , Farr v. Armstrong Rubber Co. supra; Beck v. Spindler, 256 Minn. 543
Halvorson v. American Hoist & Derrick Co. 240 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 1976
Halvorson v. American Hoist & Derrick Co. 240 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 1976
Before the strict liability rule can apply, the party asserting the rule must prove that a defect existed when it left the possession of the party charged and was unreasonably dangerous to the user.” This instruction is in accord with 4 Hetland & Adamson, Minnesota Practice, Jury Instruction Guides (2 ed.) JIG II 118, and our decisions in McCormack v. Hankscraft Co. Inc. 278 Minn. 322 , (in which we adopted Restatement, Torts 2d, § 402A); Magnuson v. Rupp Mfg.
Appeal of O'Rourke 220 N.W.2d 811 Minn. 1974
Stolp v. Scrimshaw 220 N.W.2d 811 Minn. 1974
Appeal of O'Rourke 220 N.W.2d 811 Minn. 1974
[11] Our review may be undertaken by certiorari, as in the cases cited, [12] or it may be by discretionary use of the ordinary appeals procedures, as in McCormack v. Hankscraft Co. Inc., 278 Minn. 322
Stolp v. Scrimshaw 220 N.W.2d 811 Minn. 1974
11 Our review may be undertaken by certiorari, as in the cases cited, 12 or it may be by discretionary use of the *176 ordinary appeals procedures, as in McCormack v. Hankscraft Co. Inc. 278 Minn. 322
Brown v. Arthur Schuster, Inc. 217 N.W.2d 850 Minn. 1974
Brown v. Arthur Schuster, Inc. 217 N.W.2d 850 Minn. 1974
This court, in McCormack v. Hankscraft Co. Inc. 278 Minn. 322, 341 , stated: “It is at once evident that if we agree with defendant we are placed in the untenable position of having held the evidence adequate to sustain the verdict while at the same time permitting a new trial on all the issues to occur because the trial court in the exercise of dis
Dean v. Weisbrod 217 N.W.2d 739 Minn. 1974
Dean v. Weisbrod 217 N.W.2d 739 Minn. 1974
1 McCormack v. Hankscraft Co. Inc. 278 Minn. 322
Stapleman v. St. Joseph the Worker 205 N.W.2d 677 Minn. 1973
Stapleman v. St. Joseph the Worker 205 N.W.2d 677 Minn. 1973
McCormack v. Hankscraft Co. Inc. 278 Minn. 322, 325
Waite v. American Creosote Works, Inc. 204 N.W.2d 410 Minn. 1973
Waite v. American Creosote Works, Inc. 204 N.W.2d 410 Minn. 1973
The trial court in a memorandum incorporated in its order denying motions of defendant for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial pointed out that this case was submitted to the jury pursuant to the theory of McCormack v. Hankscraft Co. Inc. 278 Minn. 322 , and Restatement, Torts 2d, § 402 A. Section 402 A, as adopted by this court in McCormack, sets out the doctrine of strict liability: “(1) One who sells any product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user or co
Matson v. Kivimaki 200 N.W.2d 164 Minn. 1972
Matson v. Kivimaki 200 N.W.2d 164 Minn. 1972
Coenen v. Buckman Building Corp. 278 Minn. 193, 197 , Mc *145 Cormack v. Hankscraft Co. Inc. 278 Minn. 322, 325
Froysland v. Leef Bros., Inc. 197 N.W.2d 656 Minn. 1972
Froysland v. Leef Bros., Inc. 197 N.W.2d 656 Minn. 1972
See, McCormack v. Hankscraft Co. Inc. 278 Minn. 322 , Farr v. Armstrong Rubber Co. supra; Beck v. Spindler, 256 Minn. 543
Olson v. Village of Babbitt 189 N.W.2d 701 Minn. 1971
Olson v. Village of Babbitt 189 N.W.2d 701 Minn. 1971
In McCormack v. Hankscraft Co. Inc. 278 Minn. 322, 333 , 154 N. W. (2d) 488, 497 , in which this court essentially adopted the rule of strict liability as stated above, we said that “a manufacturer * * * has a duty to use reasonable care in designing its product so that those it should expect will use it are protected from unreasonable risk of harm while the product
Lee v. Crookston Coca-Cola Bottling Company 188 N.W.2d 426 Minn. 1971
Farr v. Armstrong Rubber Company 179 N.W.2d 64 Minn. 1970
Farr v. Armstrong Rubber Company 179 N.W.2d 64 Minn. 1970
McCormack v. Hankscraft Co. Inc. 278 Minn. 322 , 154 N. W. (2d) 488 .
Conroy v. Kleinman Realty Co. 179 N.W.2d 162 Minn. 1970
Conroy v. Kleinman Realty Co. 179 N.W.2d 162 Minn. 1970
4 We likewise must reverse the conditional order for a new trial under the principles announced in McCormack v. Hankscraft Co. Inc. 278 Minn. 322, 341 , 154 N. W. (2d) 488, 501 .
Rakness v. Swift & Company 175 N.W.2d 429 Minn. 1970
Rakness v. Swift & Company 175 N.W.2d 429 Minn. 1970
McCormack v. Hankscraft Co. Inc. 278 Minn. 322 , 154 N. W. (2d) 488 .
Magnuson v. Rupp Manufacturing, Inc. 171 N.W.2d 201 Minn. 1969
Magnuson v. Rupp Manufacturing, Inc. 171 N.W.2d 201 Minn. 1969
At the conclusion of the charge to the jury the Court asked counsel whether they wished to call the Court’s attention to any error or omission or inadvertent statement, and there was no response.” The trial court in its memorandum attached to the order points out that in McCormack v. Hankscraft Co. Inc. 278 Minn. 322 , 154 N. W. (2d) 488 , this court was fully mindful of the fact that plaintiff there did not directly plead the theory of strict tort liability, request the court to instruct on it,
Thill v. Modern Erecting Company 170 N.W.2d 865 Minn. 1969
Thill v. Modern Erecting Company 170 N.W.2d 865 Minn. 1969
See, also, McCormack v. Hankscraft Co., 278 Minn. 322, 343 , -503 .
Kerr v. Corning Glass Works 169 N.W.2d 587 Minn. 1969
Kerr v. Corning Glass Works 169 N.W.2d 587 Minn. 1969
See, McCormack v. Hankscraft Co. Inc. 278 Minn. 322 , 154 N. W. (2d) 488 .