Litigation rooted in disputes over the interpretation and sufficiency of technical documentation is increasingly common as a number of suits have been filed in state and federal courts. This article describes the matter of Martin v. Hacker (83 NY2nd 1, Nov. 23, 1993), a recent case in which New York's highest court analyzed a technical writer's prose in the context of a lawsuit over a drug-induced suicide.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Enterprise Responsibility for Personal Injury, Vol. II, The American Law Institute, Philadelphia, April 15, 1991.
2.
HolzerH. M., Product Liability Law: The Impact on New York Businesses, Brooklyn Law School, 1990.
3.
MarkelM. H., Technical Writing: Situations and Strategies, St. Martin's Press, New York, 1992.
4.
MartinCynthia J., Individually and as Executrix of Eugene J. Martin, Deceased, v. Arthur Hacker, et al., and Chelsea Laboratories, Inc., et al., 83 NY2nd 1, Nov. 23, 1993.
5.
ParsonG. M., A Cautionary Legal Tale: The Bose v. Consumers Union Case, The Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 22:4, pp. 377–386, 1992.
6.
There Ought to Be a Law: Product Liability in New York State, The Public Policy Institute, Special Report, June 1991.
