Product Defect Case Series
Maduike v. Agency Rent-A-Car, 114 Nev. 1, 953 P.2d 24 (1998).
Product:
Injury:
Mechanism of Injury:
Nature of Defect:
Jury Verdict:
Issue on appeal:
Product Defect Law Categories:
Result:
Full Case Text: Maduike v. Agency Rent-A-Car, 114 Nev. 1, 953 P.2d 24 (1998)
Case Quotes:
To present a prima facie case for strict liability in tort, a plaintiff must establish that her injuries were caused by a defect in the product, and that the defect existed when the product left the defendant's control.1 Shoshone Coca–Cola Bottling Co. v. Dolinski, 82 Nev. 439, 420 P.2d 855 (1966). The district court dismissed the Maduikes' cause of action for strict liability based on their failure to show that the car was defective when it left Agency's control.
Maduike v. Agency Rent-A-Car, 114 Nev. 1, 6, 953 P.2d 24, 27 (1998)
Agency argues that the facts do not provide a reasonable basis for *7 the court to draw the necessary inference that the brakes were defective when the car left Agency's hands. See Griffin v. Rockwell Int'l., Inc., 96 Nev. 910, 620 P.2d 862 (1980) (actual facts shown at trial did not provide a reasonable basis for inferring a product defect). We disagree. Agency's reliance on evidence contrary to the Maduike's evidence is not sufficient to support a motion to dismiss. When considering a motion to dismiss, the district court must accept the plaintiff's evidence as true and draw all permissible inferences in the plaintiff's favor. Chowdhry, 109 Nev. at 482, 851 P.2d at 461 (citation omitted). Accordingly, we conclude that Agency's argument lacks merit.
The district court could have reasonably inferred from the Maduikes' evidence that the car had a defect when it left the Agency lot in Reno, and that the defect caused the car to lose control, satisfying the requirements for a prima facie case of strict liability. Therefore, we hold that the district court erred in granting Agency's motion to dismiss the cause of action for strict liability in tort.
Maduike v. Agency Rent-A-Car, 114 Nev. 1, 6-7, 953 P.2d 24, 27 (1998)
The jury awarded the Maduikes compensatory damages for their injuries on the cause of action for negligence. Their strict liability claim contemplated those same injuries; therefore, a finding of culpability for strict liability would not affect the calculated damages. However, the jury rendered a special verdict reducing the Maduikes' recovery by forty-five percent due to their comparative negligence. Such comparative negligence reductions do not apply when the claim is based on strict liability. Accordingly, the improper dismissal of the Maduike's **28 strict liability claim was not harmless. See NRCP 61. We therefore reverse the district court's judgment and remand this case to the district court for proceedings consistent with this opinion.2
Maduike v. Agency Rent-A-Car, 114 Nev. 1, 7, 953 P.2d 24, 27-28 (1998)
