Greenman v. Yuba Power Products Facts In the case of Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, the facts are focused around Simon Greenman. In 1963, Greenman, a resident of California, purchased a Shopsmith woodworking machine from Yuba Power Products. This Shopsmith is a multipurpose woodworking machine meant for applications such as: sanding, drilling, and planing. While using the machine for its designated purpose, however, a piece of wood that Greenman was working on was shot back and struck his face, causing serious injury. This injury was severe enough to prompt Greenman into filing a lawsuit against Yuba Power Products, the manufacturer of the Shopsmith. Greenman filed the suit on the basis that the product of Yuba Power Products was defective …show more content…
History The large part of the history behind the case is the evolution of product liability laws in California and the United States. Prior to the establishment of the laws provided by this case and others through the 20th century, many people injured by products could only win their respective cases if they could prove negligence on the manufacturers behalf. Before Greenman’s case, there were several others that unsuccessfully tried to win product liability cases in the state of California and across the nation. Some of them include: Escola v. Coca Cola and Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors. In the case of Henningsen, a steering mechanism failed in a vehicle, which led to the injury of the driver. This case then led to a court’s decision to hold companies liable under their warranty terms, which was a step in the direction of Greenman’s …show more content…
Yuba Power Products, the California Supreme Court reached a unanimous decision in favor of the plaintiff. This makes all manufacturers liable for injuries that happen because of faulty or defective products that they produce. One of the court’s deciding factors in this case was consumer protection. The California court recognized that defective products are a danger to consumers, and that all consumers should be able to rely on the safety and functionality of a product that they have purchased, and that manufacturers are responsible for producing these safe products. Along with consumer protection, the court saw a need to recognize economic realities. This was supported by stating that an average consumer does not have the expertise, knowledge, or resources to evaluate products for safety concerns themselves. This promotes fairness in the economy and also places the responsibility of product safety onto manufacturers. While the consumers might lack the expertise to evaluate product safety, the court also supports the fact that manufacturers have the ability, knowledge, and resources to test their products and evaluate them for safety themselves. In summary, the California Supreme Court adopted the law supporting strict liability for manufacturers using the reasoning of consumer protection, economic realities, manufacturer expertise, along with several other supporting
The plaintiffs, Bosse and Griffin, sued Chili’s for negligence seeking compensatory damages claiming a patron who pursued them following their skipping out on a restaurant bill was acting as agent for Chili’s at the time the patron caused the plaintiff’s car accident and that Chili’s was, therefore, responsible for the crash.
The appeal was heard in The NSW Supreme Court, Court of Appeal. The appellant appealed the issue of “blameless accidents” therefore providing new evidence, with the view that the preceding judge made an error recognising the content and scope of duty of care. He also noted the breach of duty of care and causation .
The manager at that McDonald’s restaurant, the defendant, knew Matt had to drive a long way to and from work. Even though this information was known, the manager gave an opportunity to Matt to work a cleaning shift between his regular shifts. My thoughts are that the manager should not have given the opportunity to Matt on the first place as the manager knew Matt was already working from 3:30 pm to 7:30 pm on April 4th, 1988 and 5:00 am to 8:21 am on April 5th, 1988 and had to drive 20 minutes to and from work. Adding a cleanup shift from 12:00 am to 5:00 am on April 5th, 1988 made Matt’s working hours excessively long. By the end of his shift, it is obvious that Matt is over worked and not in a condition to drive back. This lack of judgement from the manager eventually lead to the accident and death of Matt, and massive injury to Frederick M. Faverty, the plaintiff. Due to this lack of judgement, I think the verdict against McDonald’s to pay $400,000.00 to the plaintiff is
In the case of Kolchek suing to recover for Litisha’s injuries, she can sure under the negligence liability. Every product should be fully tested in every way possible to see if the product functions correctly and will it injure individuals. There should not have been a whole that is not covered. Like stated in our book The Legal Environment of Business, “if a manufacture fails to exercise “due care” to make a product safe, a person who is injured by the product may sue the manufacture for negligence”. Kolchek could sue the manufacture. In this case which is Great Lakes spa. Porter was just a company that was selling the product. Great Lakes spa should have taken the initiative to examine their products throughly before putting it out on the make for individuals to buy. Like in our book The Legal Environment of Business stated, “A manufacture, seller, or lesser is liable for failure to exercise due care to any person who sustains an injury proximately caused by a negligently made (defective) product.”
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.
This case involves the explosive nature of the Ford Pinto's fuel tank when involved in a rear-end collision. The flawed fuel tank’s structural design, led to a lawsuit and later to over one hundred civil suits as well. Engaging the examination of many concerns, most of which focused on Ford’s use of their cost-benefit analysis, showing it was less expensive to pay the court costs of the claims expected, some $49.5 million, instead of fixing the issue on each car after production, at a cost of $137 million. Leading to public disputes as to the ethics encompassing its corporate judgment to follow the internal cost-benefit.
When you or your loved one walks into a business or is invited onto private property , you expect to be walking into a safe environment. Business are responsible for taking certain measures to ensure the safety of you and your loved one. If you become injured because of a property owner 's failure to keep their property free from hazards, hidden or known, you may have a legal claim against the property owner. This is a premise liability case. Below are some frequently asked questions and answers regarding premise liability claims.
The plaintiffs also argued that they would go bankrupt if they were forced to adhere to a different GHG standard for each state. Should they be granted relief on this basis? Does history support their claim? Discuss. Numerous regulations have been put in service and have changed over time in order to control new pollutants released into the air. Nonetheless, automobile industry has always been able to evolve and adapt their manufacturing to meet the EPA guidelines. If the automobile production is feeling pressure from EPA, State and Federal governments then it’s time for them to focus on creating innovative environmental friendly cars. Despite the automobile industry needing to conform to new eco-friendly policies, they will not go bankrupt from progressing their automotive engineering.
This report presents the legal and ethical issues that one of the world’s largest automakers, Toyota, encountered due to uncontrolled car acceleration in several of their car models. These issues resulted in millions of recalls due to injuries and deaths. The case was an issue of whether the accidents were a result of sudden acceleration, bad drivers, or faulty floor mats. There were several legal issues involved in this case, including charges of negligence as well as possible charges of obstruction of justice because they knowingly hid these defects from U.S officials but did not attempt to correct these issues. By 2010, Toyota recalled 7.7 million vehicles, 5.4 million from floor mat replacements, and 2.3 million for gas-pedal re-assemblies (Jennings, 2012 Pg. 460). Toyota faced legal issues regarding design defects because of the dangers of use from errors in manufacturing. This is due to the fact that cars must be designed in view of the probability of accidents (Jennings, 2012 Pg. 337). A car which is designed in view of the probability of accidents would take into account the issues of gas pedals becoming stuck under the floor mat or other technical issues. Other legal questions that have arisen from this case are possible lost value suits, wrongful death suits, or even securities fraud claims by shareholders. Furthermore, Toyota faces ethical dilemmas that are centered on the decisions it made to hide safety issues from customers, delay a recall, and produce cars that were not safe to be driven. However, one of the issues that plaintiffs have encountered is that no two cases appear to be alike, making it difficult for the National Highway Safety Traffic Administration NHTSA to prove that the accidents were all caused by th...
The plaintiffs are arguing that the screwdriver has a design defect because the company chose a plastic handle,
A recent products liability case involved gas can use. There isn’t one single case being discussed, but several cases, all with the same defendant. This paper will explore the facts of the case and whether the final judgments should’ve been upheld. Also, this paper will discuss the ethical considerations in these cases. Blitz, USA was the number one gas can manufacturer in the U.S., headquartered in Oklahoma and controlling 75% of the gas can market (The tort bar burns on; A case study in modern robbery:
According to Steve Gorman of Thomson Reuters, the world’s largest international multimedia news agency, 40 consumers, and businesses filed legal claims against Toyota. The claims involved financial losses including diminished vehicle principles steaming from complaints of Toyota cars racing out of manage (Gorman, S. 2010). An international company memo cited that a reliable (brake override) option in 2007, three years prior to the safety feature made standard.
Noel, Dix. “Defective Products: Abnormal Use, Contributory Negligence and Assumption of Risk” Vanderbilt Law Review. New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2002. 313-23. Print.
In essence, the concept of product liability is an expansive area of study in understanding the legal application in sporting products. The product liability concept is applicable under tort law and provides legal redress for a party who has been hurt by sports product. The tort law interprets whether the injuries caused by the product were due to the products defects during the design, manufacture, or distribution. Evidently, playing sports exposes the players and the supporters to unforeseeable risks that may cause injuries or threats to life. Notably, there are sports that have minimal risks of contact like athletics.