Product Defect Case Series

Ginnis v. Mapes Hotel Corp., 86 Nev. 408, 470 P.2d 135 (1970).

Product:  Automatic Door

Injury:

Mechanism of Injury:

Nature of Defect:

Jury Verdict:

Issue on appeal:

Product Defect Law Categories:

Result:

 

Case Quotes:

 

In Shoshone Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Dolinski, 82 Nev. 439, 420 P.2d 855 (1966), we judicially adopted the doctrine of strict tort liability for Nevada in the field of foodstuffs and bottled beverages. We now extend that doctrine to the design and manufacture of all types of products. Suvada v. White Motor Co., 32 Ill.2d 612, 210 N.E.2d 182 (1965). In doing so, a plaintiff, in relying upon the doctrine, must still prove his case. As we said in Shoshone, ‘He 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. The concept of strict liability does not prove causation, nor does it trace the cause to the defendant.’ Id. at 443, 420 P.2d at 858.

Ginnis v. Mapes Hotel Corp., 86 Nev. 408, 413, 470 P.2d 135, 138 (1970)

 

 

After examining a multitude of cases and legal writers, we think the most accurate test for a ‘defect’ within strict tort liability is set forth in Dunham v. Vaughan & Bushnell Mfg. Co., 247 N.E.2d 401, 403 (Ill.1969), where it was held: ‘Although the definitions of the term ‘defect’ in the context of products liability law use varying language, all of them rest upon the common premise that those products are defective which are dangerous because they fail to perform in the manner reasonably to be expected in light of their nature and intended function.'

Ginnis v. Mapes Hotel Corp., 86 Nev. 408, 413, 470 P.2d 135, 138 (1970)

 

On the other hand, there was no evidence tending to show the defective relay was the same one installed by Dor-O-Matic before the door left the manufacturer; in which event, if there was a substitution of the part through remodeling or repair of the door, someone else, but not Dor-O-Matic, would be liable to appellant if the design were found not to be defective. The defect must have been present when the product left the manufacturer or he cannot be held liable. Shoshone Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Dolinski, supra; Suvada v. White Motor Co., supra; Restatement (Second) of Torts s 402A(1)(b).

Ginnis v. Mapes Hotel Corp., 86 Nev. 408, 414, 470 P.2d 135, 138 (1970)