Product Defect Case Series

Van Duzer v. Shoshone Coca Cola Bottling Co., 103 Nev. 383, 741 P.2d 811, (1987).

Product:

Injury:

Mechanism of Injury:

Nature of Defect:

Jury Verdict:

Issue on appeal:

Product Defect Law Categories:

Result:

Case Quotes:

This court has long recognized that a manufacturer or distributor of a product is strictly liable for injuries resulting from a defect in the product that was present when the product left its hands. Ginnis v. Mapes Hotel Corp., 86 Nev. 408, 413, 470 P.2d 135, 138 (1970). The district court correctly instructed the jury that a product is defective when it fails to perform in the manner reasonably to be expected in light of its nature and intended function. Id. As a corollary, the manufacturer or distributor is entitled to assume the product will not be subjected to abnormal or unintended uses. General Electric Co. v. Bush, 88 Nev. 360, 365, 498 P.2d 366, 369 (1972). Hence, there is no liability for an injury resulting from an abnormal or unintended use of the product. Id.

Van Duzer v. Shoshone Coca Cola Bottling Co., 103 Nev. 383, 385, 741 P.2d 811, 813 (1987)

Van Duzer succeeded in presenting a prima facia case. Respondents did not present any evidence negating the elements of a cause of action in strict liability or supporting the defense of product misuse. The verdict could only have resulted from manifest disregard of the instructions. Since we conclude Van Duzer is entitled to a new trial, we need not address her remaining assignments of error. We reverse the judgment of the district court and remand the cause for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Van Duzer v. Shoshone Coca Cola Bottling Co., 103 Nev. 383, 386, 741 P.2d 811, 814 (1987)