Product Defect Case Series
Norton Co. v. Fergestrom, No. 35719, 2001 WL 1628302, at *3 (Nev. Nov. 9, 2001).
Product: Grinding wheel (knife sharpening)
Injury: Unknown, but serious
Injury Mechanism: Wheel exploded
Nature of Defect:
Jury Verdict: Plaintiff
- $2,000,000
- $2,722,055.34 in 2016 From http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=2000000&year1=2001&year2=2016
Issue on appeal:
- Inherent defect
- Failure to warn
Product Defect Law Categories:
Result:
Full Case Text:
Case Quotes:
In order to successfully bring a strict liability claim, a plaintiff must prove that (1) the product was defective, which rendered it unreasonably dangerous; (2) the defect existed at the time the product left the manufacturer; and (3) the defect caused the plaintiff’s injury.18
Norton Co. v. Fergestrom, No. 35719, 2001 WL 1628302, at *3 (Nev. Nov. 9, 2001)
A product is defective when it fails to perform “ ‘in the manner reasonably to be expected in the light of its nature and intended function.” ’19
Norton Co. v. Fergestrom, No. 35719, 2001 WL 1628302, at *3 (Nev. Nov. 9, 2001)
Proof of the defective condition can be made either circumstantially or directly.20
Norton Co. v. Fergestrom, No. 35719, 2001 WL 1628302, at *3 (Nev. Nov. 9, 2001)
We conclude that the record contains substantial evidence upon which the jury could have based its verdict. First, Fergestrom testified that he was using the grinding wheel in the normal and intended manner. It appears from the record that Norton did not dispute this fact. Second, Norton’s experts were cross-examined extensively about the safety instructions provided with the grinding wheel. We conclude that the jury could have reasonably concluded, based on this testimony, that the product warnings were deficient. Third, there was evidence presented to the jury that no testing was done on the wheels after they were shipped from Brazil to Texas and that the wheels could have been damaged during shipment. Finally, there was evidence presented to the jury that the wheel’s instructions inadequately explained that the consumer needed to perform a “ring test on vitrified wheels” in order to identify any defects in the wheel.
Norton Co. v. Fergestrom, No. 35719, 2001 WL 1628302, at *4 (Nev. Nov. 9, 2001)