Product Defect Case Series
Gen. Elec. Co. v. Bush, 88 Nev. 360, 498 P.2d 366 (1972)
abrogated by Motenko v. MGM Dist., Inc., 112 Nev. 1038, 921 P.2d 933 (1996).
Product:
Injury: Paralyzed, TBI, almost blind
Mechanism of Injury:
Nature of Defect:
Jury Verdict:
- $3,000,000 (for victim)
- $17,299,377 in 2016 as per http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm
- $500,000 (for wife)
- $2,883,229 in 2016 as per http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm
Issue on appeal:
Product Defect Law Categories:
Result:
Case Quotes:
We have heretofore held that a defective product is dangerous if it fails to perform in the manner reasonably to be expected in the light of its nature and intended function. Ginnis v. Mapes Hotel Corp., 86 Nev. 408, 470 P.2d 135 (1970).
Gen. Elec. Co. v. Bush, 88 Nev. 360, 364, 498 P.2d 366, 369 (1972) abrogated by Motenko v. MGM Dist., Inc., 112 Nev. 1038, 921 P.2d 933 (1996).
Beyond that a product being defective gives rise to strict tort liability even though faultlessly made if it was unreasonably dangerous for the manufacturer or supplier to place that product in the hands of a user without giving suitable and adequate warnings concerning the safe and proper manner in which to use it. Pike v. Frank G. Hough Co., 2 Cal.3d 465, 85 Cal.Rptr. 629, 467 P.2d 229 (1970); Johnson v. Standard Brands Paint Co., 274 Cal.App.2d 331, 340, 79 Cal.Rptr. 194 (1969); Barth v. B. F. Goodrich Tire Co., 265 Cal.App.2d 228, 245, 71 Cal.Rptr. 306 (1968); Gherna v. Ford Motor Co., 246 Cal.App.2d 639, 651, 55 Cal.Rptr. 94 (1966); Canifax v. Hercules Powder Co., 237 Cal.App.2d 44, 52—53, 46 Cal.Rptr. 552 (1965).
Gen. Elec. Co. v. Bush, 88 Nev. 360, 364–65, 498 P.2d 366, 369 (1972) abrogated by Motenko v. MGM Dist., Inc., 112 Nev. 1038, 921 P.2d 933 (1996).
The doctrine of strict liability for an injury caused by a defective product applies even though the supplier has exercised all possible care in the preparation and sale of his product. Restatement Second of Torts, Sec. 402A(2) (a); cf. Pike v. Frank G. Hough Co., supra.
Gen. Elec. Co. v. Bush, 88 Nev. 360, 365, 498 P.2d 366, 369 (1972) abrogated by Motenko v. MGM Dist., Inc., 112 Nev. 1038, 921 P.2d 933 (1996).
Warning need not be given against dangers which are generally known (Helene Curtis Industries, Inc. v. Pruitt, 385 F.2d 841, 858 (5th Cir. 1967)), but the hazard here was not one generally known to these workmen. Nothing in their work experience could have forewarned them of the defective bolt or that a vertical lift was the only safe method of lifting this cabinet.
Gen. Elec. Co. v. Bush, 88 Nev. 360, 365, 498 P.2d 366, 369 (1972) abrogated by Motenko v. MGM Dist., Inc., 112 Nev. 1038, 921 P.2d 933 (1996).
Under strict liability the manufacturer is entitled to assume that his product will not be subjected to abnormal and unintended uses, and consequently no liability follows an injury resulting from an abnormal or unintended use. International Derrick & Equipment Co. v. Croix, 241 F.2d 216, 222 (5th Cir. 1957). But here, the eyebolts were being used for lifting as intended by a procedure that was approved by custom and usage in the trade. There was no misuse or abuse. The eyebolt was being used in a manner which the seller should have reasonably anticipated. Johnson v. Standard Brands Paint Co., supra; see also Preissman v. Ford Motor Co., 1 Cal.App.3d 841, 82 Cal.Rptr. 108 (1969).
Gen. Elec. Co. v. Bush, 88 Nev. 360, 365, 498 P.2d 366, 369 (1972) abrogated by Motenko v. MGM Dist., Inc., 112 Nev. 1038, 921 P.2d 933 (1996).
Bush's contributory negligence would have had to consist of a failure to discover the defect in the eyebolt or to guard against the possibility of its existence (Seely v. White Motor Company, 63 Cal.2d 9, 45 Cal.Rptr. 17, 403 P.2d 145 (1965); Canifax v. Hercules Powder Co., supra; see Prosser, Strict Liability to the Consumer in California, 18 Hastings L.J. 9, 48—50 (1966)), nor is there evidence that the defect in the eyebolt was known to Bush nor to anyone for even upon visual inspection it would not have been apparent. Thus, he could not have assumed the risk of a danger that he did not know existed. Truckee-Carson Irr. Dist. v. Wyatt, 84 Nev. 662, 669, 448 P.2d 46 (1968); Downing v. Marlia, 82 Nev. 294, 299, 417 P.2d 150 (1966); Vierra v. Fifh Avenue Rental Service, 60 Cal.2d 266, 32 Cal.Rptr. 193, 196, 383 P.2d 777, 780 (1963); Bee v. Tungstar Corp., 65 Cal.App.2d 729, 151 P.2d 537 (1944).
Gen. Elec. Co. v. Bush, 88 Nev. 360, 366, 498 P.2d 366, 370 (1972) abrogated by Motenko v. MGM Dist., Inc., 112 Nev. 1038, 921 P.2d 933 (1996).
