DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in New Hampshire that cite Thibault v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 395 A.2d 843.

22 citing documents.

  • Distinguished James M. Virgin v. Fireworks of Tilton, LLC & a. N.H. 2019
    To start, Thibault v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 118 N.H. 802 (1978), was decided before the statute was amended.
  • Vautour v. Body Masters Sports Industries, Inc. 784 A.2d 1178 N.H. 2001
    A product is defectively designed when it “is manufactured in conformity with the intended design but the design itself poses unreasonable dangers to consumers.” Thibault v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 118 N.H. 802, 807 (1978).
  • Trull v. Volkswagen of America, Inc. 761 A.2d 477 N.H. 2000
    A design defect exists “when the product is manufactured in conformity with the intended design but the design itself poses unreasonable dangers to consumers.” Thibault v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 118 N.H. 802, 807, 395 A.2d 843, 846 (1978).
  • Royer v. Catholic Medical Center 741 A.2d 74 N.H. 1999
    Thibault v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 118 N.H. 802, 807, 395 A.2d 843, 846 (1978).
  • Buckingham v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. 713 A.2d 381 N.H. 1998
    Thibault v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 118 N.H. 802, 806, 395 A.2d 843, 845 (1978).
  • Price v. BIC Corp. 702 A.2d 330 N.H. 1997
    Co., 119 N.H. 457, 463, 404 A.2d 1094, 1097 (1979), overruled in part by Daigle v. City of Portsmouth, 129 N.H. 561, 534 A.2d 689 (1987); Thibault v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 118 N.H. 802, 807, 395 A.2d 843, 846-47 (1978).
  • Bruzga v. PMR Architects, P.C. 693 A.2d 401 N.H. 1997
    Thibault v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 118 N.H. 802, 806-07, 395 A.2d 843, 846 (1978); LeBlanc v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., 141 N.H. 579, 586, 668 A.2d 556, 562 (1997).
  • LeBlanc v. American Honda Motor Co. 688 A.2d 556 N.H. 1997
    at 77-78, 637 A.2d at 150; see Thibault v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 118 N.H. 802, 395 A.2d 843 (1978).
  • Bohan v. Ritzo 679 A.2d 597 N.H. 1996
    Thibault v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 118 N.H. 802, 810-13, 395 A.2d 843, 848-50 (1978).
  • International Surplus Lines Insurance v. Manufacturers & Merchants Mutual Insurance 661 A.2d 1192 N.H. 1995
    Thibeault v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 118 N.H. 802, 809, 395 A.2d 843, 847-48 (1978) (in tort suits, reasonableness and foreseeability are questions for trier of fact).
  • Cyr v. J.I. Case Co. 652 A.2d 685 N.H. 1994
    Compare Thibault v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 118 N.H. 802, 806, 395 A.2d 843, 845-46 (1978) (“strict liability is not a no-fault system of compensation”) with Robbins v. Farmers Union Grain Terminal Ass’n, 552 F.2d 788, 793 (8th Cir. 1977) (strict liability does not, “by its very nature,” include elements of negligence or culpable conduct).
  • Explained Chellman v. Saab-Scania AB 637 A.2d 148 N.H. 1993
    In Thibault v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 118 N.H. 802, 395 A.2d 843 (1978), we explained the design defect theory of strict products liability which “occurs when the product is manufactured in conformity -with the intended design but the design poses unreasonable dangers to consumers.” Id.
  • LeFavor v. Ford 604 A.2d 570 N.H. 1992
    Thibault v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 118 N.H. 802, 809, 395 A.2d 843, 847 (1978).
  • Simoneau v. South Bend Lathe, Inc. 543 A.2d 407 N.H. 1988
    Compare Ray v. Alad, supra at 581, 560 P.2d at 10, with Thibault v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 118 N.H. 802, 806, 395 A.2d 843, 845-46 (1978).
  • Drop Anchor Realty Trust Charlotte Marshall v. Hartford Fire Insurance 496 A.2d 339 N.H. 1985
    to aid in post-verdict review.” Thibault v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 118 N.H. 802, 813, 395 A.2d 843, 850 (1978) (referring to “complicated or multiple count negligence or strict liability cases”).
  • Distinguished Allgeyer v. Lincoln 484 A.2d 1079 N.H. 1984
    The defendants’ argument finds support in Thibault v. *507 Sears, Roebuck & Company, 118 N.H. 802, 395 A.2d 843 (1978).
  • Hurley v. Public Service Co. 465 A.2d 1217 N.H. 1983
    This holding is consistent with our application of the principle of comparative causation to strict liability cases in Thibault v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 118 N.H. 802, 395 A.2d 843 (1978).
  • Heath v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. 464 A.2d 288 N.H. 1983
    Under our decision in Thibault v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 118 N.H. 802, 395 A.2d 843 (1978), the parties to a products liability action are entitled to have the jury “compare the causal effect of the defect in the product or design with the affirmative defense of misconduct of the plaintiff and allocate the loss.
  • Hohlenkamp v. Rheem Manufacturing Co. 655 P.2d 32 Ariz. Ct. App. 1982
  • Holm v. Sponco Mfg., Inc. 324 N.W.2d 207 Minn. 1982
  • Cloutier v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. 436 A.2d 1140 N.H. 1981
    In Thibault v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 118 N.H. 802, 809, 395 A.2d 843, 847-48 (1978), a products liability action, we noted that the issue of the dangerousness of a product requires a multifaceted balancing process involving evaluation of many conflicting factors.
  • Reid v. Spadone MacHine Co. 404 A.2d 1094 N.H. 1979
    prove the existence of a ‘defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user,’ ” Thibault v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 118 N.H. at 807, 395 A.2d 843 at 846, “that the unreasonably dangerous condition existed when the product was purchased,” id.