Product Defect Case Series
Jacobsen v. Ducommun, Inc., 87 Nev. 240, 484 P.2d 1095 (1971).
Product:
Injury:
Mechanism of Injury:
Nature of Defect:
Jury Verdict:
Issue on appeal: Whether "dangerous" and "defect" are synonymous for Rule 8 pleading standards, to allow for service under NRS 14.080.
Product Defect Law Categories: #DefinitionOfDefect
Result: "Dangerous" and "defect" ARE synonymous for Rule 8 pleading standards, to allow for service under NRS 14.080.
Case Quotes:
Although in both Drew Rentals and Metal-Matic, this court spoke in terms of a defective product and announced that the clear intent of the Nevada legislature in enacting NRS 14.080 was to provide a means whereby persons harmed in this state by a defective product originating from outside the state could obtain jurisdiction over the responsible party, there was no intention in those cases to unreasonably limit the effect of NRS 14.080. The common sense intent of that statute is to afford an injured resident of this state an opportunity to effect service of process upon an entity not otherwise amenable to service who manufactures, produces, makes, Markets or otherwise supplies, directly or indirectly, any product for distribution, sale or use which causes injury to persons or property resulting from such distribution, sale or use. Such an opportunity places the injured resident of this state upon an equal footing with residents of other jurisdictions, similarly injured, who have an opportunity to make personal service upon the offending entity.
Jacobsen v. Ducommun, Inc., 87 Nev. 240, 242, 484 P.2d 1095, 1096 (1971).
Pursuant to NRCP 8(a),1 all that is required is a short and plain statement of the claim, showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. In Metal-Matic, Inc. v. District Court, supra, this court held that if it is reasonably forseeable that a product will enter the flow of commerce, the requirements of due process have been satisfied, and a defendant may be sued in any state where the product causes injury without regard for how many hands have touched the product prior to injury, and went on to say: ‘We conclude that under NRS 14.080 Nevada may acquire jurisdiction over a foreign manufacturer of a product which it reasonably may expect to enter interstate commerce, which does enter interstate commerce, and because of an alleged defect, causes injury in Nevada to the plaintiff.’ (Emphasis added.)
Jacobsen v. Ducommun, Inc., 87 Nev. 240, 243, 484 P.2d 1095, 1097 (1971).
In 32 Tenn.L.R. 363, 373, the author wrote: ‘(N)o single definition of defect has proved adequate to define the scope of the manufacturer's strict liability in tort for physical injuries.’
Jacobsen v. Ducommun, Inc., 87 Nev. 240, 243, 484 P.2d 1095, 1097 (1971).
According to Comment h following s 402A of the Second Restatement of Torts, where a defendant has ‘reason to anticipate that danger may result from a particular use’ of his product and he fails to give adequate warning of such a danger, ‘a product sold without such warning is in a defective condition.’ See Crane v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 218 Cal.App.2d 855, 32 Cal.Rptr. 754 (Cal.App.1963); Canifax v. Hercules Powder Co., 237 Cal.App.2d 44, 46 Cal.Rptr. 552 (Cal.App.1965); 13 A.L.R.3d 1057 s 6(b). See also Santor v. A and M Karagheusian, 44 N.J. 52, 207 A.2d 305 (1965), where the court stated that it was not necessary in the context of that case to attempt to define the outer limits of the word ‘defect,’ but that it was sufficient to say that the concept was a broad one and that the range of operation of this concept must be developed as the problems arise, and by courts mindful that the public interest demands consumer protection.
Jacobsen v. Ducommun, Inc., 87 Nev. 240, 243, 484 P.2d 1095, 1097 (1971).
For the purpose of service of process, ‘dangerous' and ‘defective’ can be treated in the same context because a product can be dangerous because it is defective, even though it can also be dangerous without being defective. Liability could follow if, on the merits, it is established that the product is either dangerous or defective. Crane v. Sears Roebuck & Co., supra; Canifax v. Hercules Powder Co., supra; and cases collected in 13 A.L.R.3d 1057 s 6(b).
Jacobsen v. Ducommun, Inc., 87 Nev. 240, 243, 484 P.2d 1095, 1097 (1971).
