My Luu
BLAW 300
November 13, 2017
Greenman vs. Yuba Power
Facts
William Greenman, the plaintiff, filed a lawsuit against the retailer and manufacturer of Shopsmith because he was injured when his Shopsmith combination power tool threw a piece of wood, striking him in the head. Greenman’s wife bought him purchased the tool from a retailer for Christmas. This new power tool is advertised that it could be used as a saw, drill, and wood lathe. The plaintiff saw a Shopsmith demonstrated by the retailer and studied a brochure prepared by the manufacturer so he bought all the attachment to use Shopsmith as a wood lathe. Every time working with this Shopsmith tool, Mr. Greenman always followed all the instructions provided by the manufacturer and …show more content…
Can plaintiff recover compensation for injuries sustained by using a product, even though he did not purchase the product and did not prove negligence on the part of the manufacturer? Both the plaintiff and defendants appealed the jury decision. The plaintiff demanded a reversed judgment that in the favor of the retailer. However, according to product liability and strict liability, the manufacturer should be liable for their harmful or defective products. The manufacturer should be liable for the negligence if their product to cause harm to the users. In such a type of case, it is not necessary for the customers to give notice within a reasonable time to the sellers. While the purpose of the 1769 section of the Civil Code is to protect the seller, and product liability protects the customers’ rights regarding defective products. Another issue arose from this case was whether to emphasize on the Civil Code (section 1769) or product liability when viewing this case. While both parties had their own reasons to defense themselves, it is hard to make a …show more content…
According to the product liability, the manufacturer is liable for the customer and the consequences that the product caused to them. In this case, the manufacturer of Shopsmith was held liable for negligence. The liability of the manufacturer is governed not by the law of contract warranties, but by the law of strict liability in tort. Therefore, the manufacturer, in this case Yuba, is held strictly liable for all injuries resulting from defects in its products, regardless of negligence, contractual relationship, or warranties, as it placed its product on the market knowing it would be used without inspection. The purpose of such liability is to ensure that the costs of injuries resulting from defective products are borne by the manufacturers that put such products in the market, rather than the injured persons who are powerless to protect themselves. Sales warranties serve this purpose fitfully at best.
Finally, in 1963, in the case of Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc., the Supreme Court of California has affirmed strict liability rules for products with disabilities. In a short time, strict liability rules have spread throughout the United States and in 2003 it became the law not only in the US and was established in other countries around the world as
BLAW 300
November 13, 2017
Greenman vs. Yuba Power
Facts
William Greenman, the plaintiff, filed a lawsuit against the retailer and manufacturer of Shopsmith because he was injured when his Shopsmith combination power tool threw a piece of wood, striking him in the head. Greenman’s wife bought him purchased the tool from a retailer for Christmas. This new power tool is advertised that it could be used as a saw, drill, and wood lathe. The plaintiff saw a Shopsmith demonstrated by the retailer and studied a brochure prepared by the manufacturer so he bought all the attachment to use Shopsmith as a wood lathe. Every time working with this Shopsmith tool, Mr. Greenman always followed all the instructions provided by the manufacturer and …show more content…
Can plaintiff recover compensation for injuries sustained by using a product, even though he did not purchase the product and did not prove negligence on the part of the manufacturer? Both the plaintiff and defendants appealed the jury decision. The plaintiff demanded a reversed judgment that in the favor of the retailer. However, according to product liability and strict liability, the manufacturer should be liable for their harmful or defective products. The manufacturer should be liable for the negligence if their product to cause harm to the users. In such a type of case, it is not necessary for the customers to give notice within a reasonable time to the sellers. While the purpose of the 1769 section of the Civil Code is to protect the seller, and product liability protects the customers’ rights regarding defective products. Another issue arose from this case was whether to emphasize on the Civil Code (section 1769) or product liability when viewing this case. While both parties had their own reasons to defense themselves, it is hard to make a …show more content…
According to the product liability, the manufacturer is liable for the customer and the consequences that the product caused to them. In this case, the manufacturer of Shopsmith was held liable for negligence. The liability of the manufacturer is governed not by the law of contract warranties, but by the law of strict liability in tort. Therefore, the manufacturer, in this case Yuba, is held strictly liable for all injuries resulting from defects in its products, regardless of negligence, contractual relationship, or warranties, as it placed its product on the market knowing it would be used without inspection. The purpose of such liability is to ensure that the costs of injuries resulting from defective products are borne by the manufacturers that put such products in the market, rather than the injured persons who are powerless to protect themselves. Sales warranties serve this purpose fitfully at best.
Finally, in 1963, in the case of Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc., the Supreme Court of California has affirmed strict liability rules for products with disabilities. In a short time, strict liability rules have spread throughout the United States and in 2003 it became the law not only in the US and was established in other countries around the world as