ClickCease

Product Defect Case Series

Cent. Tel. Co. v. Fixtures Mfg. Corp., 103 Nev. 298, 738 P.2d 510 (1987).

Product: Couch

Injury:

Mechanism of Injury: Couch "Gave Way"

Nature of Defect:

Jury Verdict:

Issue on appeal:

Product Defect Law Categories: #AssumptionOfRisk

Result:

Case Quotes:

The implied assumption of risk doctrine has been subsumed by our comparative negligence statute. Mizushima v. Sunset Ranch, Inc., 103 Nev. 259, 737 P.2d 1158 (1987).

Cent. Tel. Co. v. Fixtures Mfg. Corp., 103 Nev. 298, 299, 738 P.2d 510, 511–12 (1987).


While assumption of risk is no longer a bar to negligence, it is a defense to strict products liability. Young Machine Co. v. Long, 100 Nev. 692, 692 P.2d 24 (1984); Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A comment a and n (1965).

Cent. Tel. Co. v. Fixtures Mfg. Corp., 103 Nev. 298, 300, 738 P.2d 510, 512 (1987).


In the case of strict products liability, the defendant must show (1) that the plaintiff actually knew and appreciated the particular risk or danger created by the defect, (2) that the plaintiff voluntarily encountered the risk while realizing the danger, and (3) that the plaintiff's decision to voluntarily encounter the known risk was unreasonable. Johnson v. Clark Equipment Co., 274 Or. 403, 547 P.2d 132 (1976).

Cent. Tel. Co. v. Fixtures Mfg. Corp., 103 Nev. 298, 300, 738 P.2d 510, 512 (1987).


The deposition testimony indicates that one Central Telephone Company employee actually knew and appreciated the risk created by the broken couch since she removed the loose cushion from the couch and set it aside with the intent that no one would utilize the couch without the cushion in place. Such action reveals that that employee did not voluntarily encounter the risk while realizing the danger because she did not intend or expect anyone to utilize the couch.

Another Central Telephone Company employee did not actually know and appreciate the risk created by the broken couch since she was unaware that the couch was defective. She watched an alleged non-employee replace the cushion on the couch without realizing the danger.

No employee voluntarily encountered the risk while realizing the danger. Consequently, assumption of risk is not a defense to Central Telephone's cause of action based upon a strict products liability theory.

Cent. Tel. Co. v. Fixtures Mfg. Corp., 103 Nev. 298, 300, 738 P.2d 510, 512 (1987)

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.