Product Defect Case Series

Griffin v. Rockwell Int'l, Inc., 96 Nev. 910, 620 P.2d 862 (1980).

Product:

Injury:

Mechanism of Injury:

Nature of Defect:

Jury Verdict:

Issue on appeal:

Product Defect Law Categories: #BurdenOfProof

Result:

Case Quotes:

Although it is true that in reviewing the grant of a Rule 41(b) motion “the plaintiff's evidence must be accepted as true ... (and) this court must draw all permissible inferences in his favor and not pass upon the credibility of the witnesses nor weigh the evidence,” Bates v. Cottonwood Cove Corp., 84 Nev. 388, 391, 441 P.2d 622, 624 (1968), it is equally true that the plaintiff must present a prima facie case upon which the triers of fact can grant relief. Warner v. Dillion, 92 Nev. 677, 588 P.2d 540 (1976). In a strict liability case, such as that before us, the burden of proving liability rests upon the plaintiff, who, “must still establish that his injury was caused by a defect in the product, and that such defect existed when the product left the hands of the defendant.” Ginnis v. Mapes Hotel Corp., 86 Nev. 408, 413, 470 P.2d 135, 138 (1970); Duncan v. Rockwell Manufacturing Co., 173 Mont. 382, 567 P.2d 936, 939 (1977).

Griffin v. Rockwell Int'l, Inc., 96 Nev. 910, 911–12, 620 P.2d 862, 863 (1980)

The claimed defect in this case, the absence of an interlock safety device on a 10 inch table saw manufactured by respondent, was not sufficiently shown to withstand the motion to dismiss. The only evidence offered by appellant Griffin was his testimony, the stricken testimony of his proposed expert, and an instruction booklet on a Rockwell 10 inch saw that was printed the year after the accident occurred. Even by viewing this evidence most favorably to Griffin, the testimony of the witnesses does not sufficiently demonstrate that such an interlock switch was or was not a part of the saw when it left the control of respondent manufacturer. While an inference could possibly be drawn that the offered booklet came from an identically built saw, the jury would then have had to draw the further inference (based not upon a proved fact, but upon the foregoing conclusion) that if such a device were on the saw it would be reflected in the booklet. The actual facts shown at trial do not provide a reasonable basis for drawing such inference regarding such an essential element of appellant's case in chief. See Rickard v. City of Reno, 71 Nev. 266, 272-73, 288 P.2d 209, 212 (1955).

Griffin v. Rockwell Int'l, Inc., 96 Nev. 910, 912, 620 P.2d 862, 863 (1980)