ClickCease

Product Defect Case Series

Outboard Motor Corp. v. Schupbach, 93 Nev. 158, 561 P.2d 450 (1977).

Product: Electric cart

Injury:  Death and injury for multiple plaintiffs

Mechanism of Injury: A spark from the electric cart ignited gas, causing an explosion

Nature of Defect: Failure to warn

Jury Verdict:

Issue on appeal:

Product Defect Law Categories:

Result:

Case Quotes:

The doctrine of strict tort liability first was adopted in Nevada with respect to bottled beverages. Shoshone Coca-Cola v. Dolinski, 82 Nev. 439, 420 P.2d 855 (1966). Later, it was extended to products of all types. Ginnis v. Mapes Hotel Corp., 86 Nev. 408, 470 P.2d 135 (1970).

Outboard Motor Corp. v. Schupbach, 93 Nev. 158, 162, 561 P.2d 450, 452 (1977).


To date, our consideration of that doctrine has primarily been confined to cases where the product was shown to be defective without any need to consider the outer limits of the word ‘defect’ or the scope of its meaning. In Shoshone Coca-Cola v. Dolinski, supra, the bottled beverage was defective because it contained a decomposed mouse. In Ginnis v. Mapes Hotel Corp., supra, the automatic hotel door was defective because of a malfunctioning safety relay. Worrell v. Barnes, 87 Nev. 204, 484 P.2d 573 (1971), concerned a leaky fitting in a residential gas system. And, General Electric Co. v. Bush, 88 Nev. 360, 498 P.2d 366 (1972), involved a defective eye bolt.

Outboard Motor Corp. v. Schupbach, 93 Nev. 158, 162, 561 P.2d 450, 452–53 (1977).


In a different context (pleading) we have approved Comment h following s 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts (1965) to the effect that 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.’ Jacobsen v. Ducommun, Inc., 87 Nev. 240, 484 P.2d 1095 (1971). In that case we also noted that the concept of ‘defect’ is a broad one. In General Electric Co. v. Bush, supra, we approved the proposition that strict liability may be imposed even though the product is faultlessly made if it was unreasonably dangerous to place the product in the hands of the user without suitable and adequate warning concerning safe and proper use.

Outboard Motor Corp. v. Schupbach, 93 Nev. 158, 162, 561 P.2d 450, 453 (1977).


In the case before us the electric cart was safe when used in nonhazardous surroundings. It was not sparkproof nor intended to be so. It became a dangerous and defective product only when used in a hazardous atmosphere where its sparking characteristic foreseeably could cause damage. It was used in such an atmosphere, and since Outboard did not give warning that it should not be so used, the plaintiffs contend that the failure to warn may itself be deemed a defect causing injury. We agree with this contention since it is in line with this court's mentioned expressions in the cases of Jacobsen v. Ducommun, Inc., supra, and General Electric Co. v. Bush, supra. We, therefore, turn to consider Outboard's alternative contention that it was not under a duty to warn since the danger resulting from the use of the cart in a hazardous atmosphere was actually known to the user.

Outboard Motor Corp. v. Schupbach, 93 Nev. 158, 163, 561 P.2d 450, 453 (1977).


The record does not show that the employees knew of danger if they used the cart in a chemical atmosphere. Although aware that the cart sparked, they did not know the intensity required to cause an explosion. Indeed, that very cart had been used in all areas of the plant for years without an explosion resulting from such use. In these circumstances, it is appropriate to deem the defect in the product, that is, the failure to give suitable warning, as latent or hidden. Our decision in Bradshaw v. Blystone Equipment Co. of Nevada, 79 Nev. 441, 386 P.2d 396 (1963), concerning an open and obvious danger is, for this reason alone, inapposite.1

Moreover, we reject Outboard's contention that it is a matter of a common knowledge that sparks cause an explosion in a chemical atmosphere. Many factors must coexist before an explosion occurs. The record does not establish that the employees possessed essential detailed knowledge as to render the danger open and obvious to them. Sierra Pacific v. Anderson, 77 Nev. 68, 358 P.2d 892 (1961).

Outboard Motor Corp. v. Schupbach, 93 Nev. 158, 163, 561 P.2d 450, 453 (1977).

Clear Counsel Law group

Contact Info

1671 W Horizon Ridge Pkwy Suite 200,
Henderson, NV 89012

+1 702 522 0696
info@clearcounsel.com

Daily: 9:00 am - 5:00 pm
Saturday & Sunday: By Appointment Only

Copyright 2019 Clear Counsel Law Group® | Nav Map

Nothing on this site is legal advice.