Issue: On July 26, 1988, a powerscreen produced by Powerscreen International Limited (PSI) and it was sold to KMI Materials, Inc. by Powerscreen of Arizona, Incorporated’s (POA). During this time Edward Rowell was a foreman employed by KMI in Las Vegas, Nevada. On October 31, 1988, Rowell installs a new belt on the powerscreen. The next day Rowell noticed that when a material was placed on the belt, the belt would slip. Rowell tried adjusting the tension on the belt to reduce the slipping; however, he couldn’t fix the belt. After the first failure, Rowell went to get a tar stick dressing to place on belt. He slowed the powerscreen down to its idle speed, but the tar stick adhered to the belt pulling Rowell into the space between the belt …show more content…
Rowell argues that this is a strict product liability because the product, powerscreen, had a defect and that is why the belt kept slipping. This made the product unreasonably dangerous, and the injury happened because of the defect that the product had. He also argues that there were not warning labels on the product causing him to not be aware or assume the risks of this product. The plaintiff’s expert James K. Blundell stated that a nip point guard could have prevented the injury from happening. A nip point is a point where a person or a part of a person could possibly get caught in the equipment. Rowell also argues that the product’s manuals did not specify how to use or apply the dressing on the belt since a common problem with this type of …show more content…
Even thought they admit that the manuals do no mention the use of any belt dressing, they do advice the consumers to not perform any maintenance on the product while it in operation. The defendants also pointed out that Rowell was used to using spray or aerosol dressing on the equipment before and hadn’t used the tar stick recently. The defendant’s expert, Howard Elwell stated that this injury could have been prevented if Rowell would have used a different type of dressing such as aerosol; he mentioned that Rowell could have turned off the equipment; he could have also applied the dressing further from the
No further information was given and the questionnaire was not filled out. LAA’s doctors (Defendant), Dr. Preau and Dr. Dennis, submitted referral letters for on his behalf. The letter from Dr. Dennis and Dr. Preau stated that both of them had worked with Dr. Berry and they highly recommend Dr. Berry as an anaestheologist. Based on the letter and recommendations, Kadlec hired him. Approximately a year later, Berry again started using Demerol. On work at Kadlec, he committed gross negligence resulting in severe brain damage to patient. Due to this incidence Kadlec learned that Dr. Berry had been fired from Lakeview. Kadlec first settled Dr. Berry’s malpractice case and then filed suit against Lakeview, its shareholders, and LMC for intentional negligence and strict responsibility misrepresentation based on LMC’s omission of material facts in the letter to Kadlec. The district court supported Plaintiff’s theory. LMC’s moved for summary
Stirling Bridge had been a thriving power tool business for over 100 years. The company had sold and distributed power tools and equipment all over the U.S., Europe, and third world countries. Recently one of Stirling Bridge’s top selling products, the Braveheart power tool line, came under attack when consumer agencies conducted research and found many consumers who purchased the power tools were experiencing significant harm and personal injury after use. Stirling Bridge (STIRLING BRIDGE) had identified potential safety concerns with their power tools and hired an independent research company to investigate why consumers were being injured using their power tools, well before the company came under the attack of public agencies.
They reasoned that since Barnett didn’t either argue against the dismissal of negligence claim at the time of its dismissal or include the claim in subsequent revisions, she had no support for her claim that the court had erred in dismissing her claim of negligence. The court also ruled that the language of section 3-108(b) of the Tort Immunity Act meant that complete, unconditional immunity was to be offered if supervision was present. As a result of this interpretation, the issue of if the lifeguards had committed willful and wanton misconduct was rendered irrelevant. Since the issues of material fact raised by the appellant weren’t actually issues of material fact, the Supreme Court affirmed the District and Appellate Court’s motion and subsequent affirmation of summary
“In tort law, the doctrine which holds a defendant guilty of negligence without an actual showing that he or she was negligent. Its use is limited in theory to cases in which the cause of the plaintiff's injury was entirely under the control of the defendant, and the injury presumably could have been caused only by negligence”(Burt, M.A., & Skarin, G.D. (2011). In consideration of this, the defendant argues that the second foundation of this principle should be solely based on common knowledge of the situation. Although, there is a experts testimony tartar is no basis in this case , in the experts testimony or anything else, for indicating that the plaintiffs injury resulted from the negligence of the defendant. The court correctly found the defendant not liable under the Res ipsa
Cross, Frank B., and Roger LeRoy Miller. "Ch. 13: Strict Liability and Product Liability." The legal environment of business: text and cases, 8th edition. Mason, Ohio: Cengage Learning Custom Solutions, 2012. 294-297. Print.
A dentist fits several children with braces. The children are regular patients of the dentist. The results for some of the patients turn out to be unacceptable and damaging. There are children who have developed gum infections due to improperly tightened braces. Some mistakenly had their permanent teeth removed, while others have misaligned bites. A local attorney becomes aware of these incidences, looks further into it, and realizes the dentist has not been properly trained and holds no legal license to practice dentistry or orthodontics. The attorney decides to act on behalf of the displeased patients and files a class action lawsuit. The attorney plans to prove the dentist negligent and guilty of dental malpractice by providing proof using the four D’s of negligence. The four D’s of negligence are duty, dereliction, direct cause and damages.
This design defect, however, does not mean that the plaintiff is awarded since the design defect was not the proximate cause of injury for Cheyenne. Due to Gordon’s modification of the seat belt, Ford is not liable for the injuries that Cheyenne suffered. Stark ex. rel. Jacobsen v. Ford Motor Co., 365 N.C. 468, 472, 723 S.E.2d 753, 756 (2012). The evidence supports the idea that her spinal cord injury was a direct result of placing the seat belt behind her back. Preemption as a theory that would bar the Starks from recovering does not apply in this case, since the federal government’s regulations do not make manufacturers immune to design defect claims. Stark’s claims of inadequate warnings likewise do not apply since the misuse of the product, it’s alteration, is the proximate cause of injury. Had the modification of the seat belt not been the proximate cause of injury, and instead a contributing factor, the court might have decided that Stark was only twenty percent responsible for the injury that occurred. This amount of contributory negligence would not have barred them from recovering, according to Indiana Statutes, and Ford would have been liable for the
This trend began to ebb with MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co., and the ruling by an appellate court that favored MacPherson, the plaintiff. This case, however, was more a result of political expediency than a reasoned verdict based on fact. In this case, the plaintiff argued that his 1911 Baby Buick had a defective wheel that collapsed while traveling at a low rate of speed, hitting a telephone pole, and pinning him under, breaking his wrist and cracking several ribs; however, the facts of the trial revealed that the accident as it was recounted by the plaintiff was a physical impossibility, but due to the increasing pressures to dispense with privity rulings, the court imposed on the defendant the responsibility of inspecting and discarding defective wheels, implying causal negligence even though the plaintiff had driven the vehicle for more than a year in less than perfect road conditions without a mishap. (MacPherson Tort Story; MacPherson v. Buick Motor Company: Simplifying the Facts While Reshaping the Law, Pg.
5. Plaintiff’s nerve was severed under her left arm when an epee sliced through plaintiff’s jacket.
The Massachusetts Supreme Court’s jury found that Toys R Us was liable for wrongful death, negligence, and breach of warranty and awarded t...
Gym expert said that Beginner would not notice that mark. Powerhouse expert commented that accident happened because the handlebars displayed on the stationary bicycle that she was using unanticipated and without warning detaches from bicycle causing her fall. As defendant filed a motion for summary
On the 1st of October in the year 2017, the defendant, in this case, the supermarket was found liable for the case Susan injury in the supermarket's premises. The hip injury on Susan’s hip which was a result of the slipping over a squashed banana. The presence of the squashed banana in the premises was an outright sign of negligence and recklessness by the supermarket's staff. (Damage law)
1.1 The following report contains an introduction, background, methodology, result, discussion, recommendations and conclusion following a Display Screen Equipment assessment (DSE).
At the physicians’ office, Ricks was examined by Dr. S.M. Budge (Defendant) and told that his hand was getting worse. He referred him to Dr. D.C. Budge (another defendant) who examined the hand and indicated that it needed operated.. Ricks was advised to visit hospital immediately. But at the hospital, Dr. S.M. Budge went to Ricks’ room and refused him treatment to his hand because Rick owes for earlier treatment done by the Budges. Ricks left and went to Cache Valley Hospital (CVH) and was examined by another physician who believed his condition to be horrible. His hand was swollen with fluid oozing from it. He immediately operated, but two weeks later Ricks’ middle finger and piece of metacarpal bone had to subsequently amputate. Rick sued Budges for a medical malpractice as he refused him to treat. The trial court found the case in favor of the Defendant. Rick
.... Evaluating the danger of the medical attendants distinguished that the rugs were a critical danger calculate in the undertaking. At the point when a patient was involving the crane, the wheels sank into the lift; the wheels sank into the rug, making it troublesome to move. The derrick's wheels were produced out of elastic, which is suitable for smooth or hard floors. These sorts of conduct are onerous to others and need to be tested, whether it is conduct by associates, guests, carers or those being backed. (Nolan et al, 2011, p126)