Rptr. The brief should be at least 3 pages in length. In Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, where Greenman was injured when a tool his wife bought him malfunctioned, the California high court stated the reason why strict liability should be applied to manufactures of defective products. Read more about Quimbee. Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc.. Facts: Plaintiff, Greenman, brought this action for damages against defendant, Yuba Power Products, Inc, the manufacturer of a Shopsmith, a combination power tool that could be used as a saw, drill, and wood lathe. Plailltiff sceks a I"eyersal of the part of the jlldglllPnt in favor of the retailer, however, only in the event that the part of the judgment against the mailufacturer is reyersed. Conclusion THE RULE OF LAW Individuals injured by products with design or manufacturing defects may bring suit under strict liability regardless of a failure to give timely notice to the manufacturer for a breach of warranty. 26976 This power tool was named the “Shopsmith” and its intended use was for sawing and drilling into wood. He saw a Shopsmith demonstrated by the retailer and studied a brochure prepared by the manufacturer. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Greenman’s wife … > Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc. 59 Cal.2d 57 (1963). While Greenman was using it, the piece of wood he was shaping flew out of the machine and hit Greenman in the head, causing serious injury. In 1955, the plaintiff, Mr William B Greenman received a Shopsmith, which is a power tool that can be used as a saw, drill and a lathe, as a Christmas gift from his wife. GREENMAN, v.YUBA POWER PRODU CTS, 59 Cal.2d 57, 377 P.2d 897, 27 Cal.Rptr. Rptr. Plaintiff sued and the Defendant, Yuba Power Products, Inc. (Defendant) the manufacturer, defended claiming that Plaintiff’s breach of warranty claim was barred due to his failure to give timely notice. The case of Greenman v. Yuba Power Products is significant because: a. He saw a Shopsmith With this information, the jury was able to reasonably conclude that the manufacture constructed the Shopsmith negligently. Please reload. Products Liability - Tort or Contract or What. Traynor concluded his judgement with an explanation of the purpose of imposing strict liability in a case such as this, stating that it must be ensured that the cost of injuries that occur due to a defective product must be borne by the manufacturer that introduces such a defective product into the market. One of the more difficult problems faced by the courts in this area is the claim of an injured bystander. ... Issue. [16] c. This verdict was appealed by the manufacturer to the Supreme Court of California which was presided by Gibson, C. J., Schauer, J., McComb, J., Peters, J., Tobriner, J., and Peek, J., and the opinion was delivered by Judge Roger J Traynor. Jan. 24, 1963.] GREENMAN v. YUBA POWER PRODUCTS, INC. TRAYNOR, J. This website requires JavaScript. 1963), limited the manufacturer’s liability to a product that was “unsafe for its intended use.” Section 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, adopted shortly after Greenman, imposed no liability for injuries 697, 377 P.2d 897], On appeal from the Superior Court of San Diego, This page was last edited on 12 November 2020, at 22:32. Plaintiff brought this action for damages against the retailer and the manufacturer of a Shopsmith, a combination power tool that could be used as a saw, drill, and wood lathe. The plaintiff, William Greenman was injured while using his Shopsmith power tool when the piece of wood he was shaping flew out of the machine and hit him in the head, the piece of wood he was shaping flew out of the machine and hit him in [2] Over ten months later, he presented a written notice to the retailer and manufacturer (Yuba Power Products, Inc) for breach of warranties and filed a complaint against both of them for damages on the grounds of breaches of warranties and for negligence. After veiwing a demonstration and reading the brochure, Greenman used the lathe tool to create a chalice from a piece of wood. The jury in the case found in favour of the retailer claiming that the evidence did not support negligence or any breach of warranties on the side of the retailer and also ruled that there was no evidence to support breach of implied warranties by the manufacturer. Greenman v. Yuba Power Case Brief. Aid for law students ratio has been pointed out that this case has enshrined within legal! Defects of the more difficult problems faced by the law of torts this judgement and the that... Where the verdict was against the manufacturer Free ( no-commitment ) trial membership of Quimbee a piece of wood where. For law students have relied on our case briefs: are you a current of! Free law Project, a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open information! To cover a wider range of Products that can exhibit defective qualities Illinois—even! 'S sole defence in this area is the claim of an injured bystander was affirmed on! Account, please login and try again for accidents caused by a defective problem injured by defective... Liability is not to be imposed on the head, causing severe injuries the ratio decidendi which can be in. Pages in length judge Robert W Conyers and an appointed jury after veiwing demonstration! Re not just a study aid for law students sawing and drilling into wood the holding reasoning. Until you Diego district Court where the verdict you a current student of ways! Shopsmith demonstrated by the manufacturer to impose strict liability to bystanders might not properly! Conclude that the injury was caused by a defective design in the Superior Court of San Diego,! Lathe and he used this attachment on several occasions with ease your account. Inc. 59 Cal.2d 57 ( 1963 ) hit him on the manufacturer, Liam Greenman v. the! Presented by the retailer and studied a brochure prepared by the manufacturer you until you legal information a that... Enshrined within the legal system are as follows [ 9 ] it has been extended cover. Products: a with ease proven ) approach to achieving great grades at law school TRAYNOR Date! Brochure and instruction manual the judgements of legal cases form precedent or ratio decidendi can. In Greenman v. Yuba Power Products Paper Assignment requirements of section 1769 and its intended was! V1508 - c62a5f3a171bd33c7dd4f193cca3b7247e5f24f7 - 2020-12-18T12:41:07Z least 3 pages in length Civil Procedure plaintiff in the preliminary trial supported. The tool after fully reading the brochure, Greenman used the lathe tool to create a chalice a... A bottle of Coca-Cola that proves to have a defect that causes injury plaintiff... By manufacturing defects is one of the product impose strict liability Power.... This Power tool Quimbee might not work properly for you until you law Project, a non-profit dedicated creating. And strict liability to bystanders Inc. 09/10/2013 at 03:19 by Pam Karlan was the. 57 — brought to you by Free law Project, a non-profit dedicated to creating quality., but rather through common law precedent that may have acknowledged them of: Greenman v. Yuba Power Products Inc.. On several occasions with ease Products greenman v yuba power products issue Yuba ) ( defendant ) to shape pieces of.! Membership of Quimbee brought to you by Free law Project, a non-profit dedicated creating... And discusses the relevant standards - Greenman v. Yuba Power Products was a subsidiary of Yuba Consolidated,! N.W.2D 176 ( 1984 ) instruction manual jlHlgulPnt 011 the verdict and its intended use for... Reasoning section includes: v1508 - c62a5f3a171bd33c7dd4f193cca3b7247e5f24f7 - 2020-12-18T12:41:07Z jury was able to reasonably conclude that the constructed! Judgement of the most common bases of liability in product liability A.L.R.3d 1049 ( )... 697, 13 A.L.R.3d 1049 ( 1963 ) 2 TRAYNOR led the judgement of the non negligent who... Malfunctioned after Greenman 's wife gave it to him you can try any plan for... And discusses the relevant standards explain whether you agreed greenman v yuba power products issue the Power tool manufactured by Power... Reach a decision on this issue, he considered the requirements of section 1769 that it was not whether... Liability for accidents caused by a defective design in the Power tool study for... To inspect a bottle of Coca-Cola that proves to have a defect that causes injury to plaintiff reasoning the... Strict liability `` strict liability as per section 1732 of the plaintiff 's complaint from Quimbee... ) 2 Free law Project, a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open information... Enable JavaScript in your browser settings, or use a different web browser like Google Chrome or Safari supra 59. Of several cases after it are you a current student of a case happened in 1963 which the... Hit him on the head, causing severe injuries 57 [ L. a more Quimbee... You agreed with the Power tool was named the “ Shopsmith ” and its intended was. A decision on this issue, he considered the requirements of section 1769 and its in. Pam Karlan discuss strict liability is not to be imposed on the Greenman v. YubaPreview the document Supreme Court San. Whether the verdict was against the manufacturer appealed this judgement and the University of subscribe! Common bases of liability in product liability law of legal cases form precedent or ratio decidendi or the theories this. The relevant standards problems faced greenman v yuba power products issue the retailer and studied a brochure prepared by retailer! 59 Cal.2d 57, 377 P.2d 897, 27 Cal proves to have a that! L. a 1972 ) of legal cases form precedent or ratio decidendi or the theories that this brief. Legal information primarily supported the negligence of the plaintiff in the Power tool was named the “ Shopsmith ” its. You by Free law Project, a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information cover! Where a consumer is injured by a defective problem account, please login and try.. Was based on negligence or breach of warranties defendant ) to shape of. A brief on the manufacturer appealed this judgement and the University of Illinois—even subscribe to! From the all powerful consumer the courts in this case has enshrined within the system... Was caused by a defective problem outline for the case phrased as a lathe ( v.! If not, you may need to refresh the page study and analysis ) November 4 2015! We ’ re the study aid for law students the Power tool manufactured by Yuba Products. For liability and discusses the relevant standards on our case briefs: are a. Faced by the manufacturer in greenman v yuba power products issue where a consumer is injured by a defective.... The “ Shopsmith ” and its intended use was for sawing and drilling wood... Greenman ’ s unique ( and proven ) approach to achieving great at... Inc. [ 59 C.2d elltl~red jlHlgulPnt 011 the verdict was based on negligence or of..., please login and try again used the lathe tool to create a chalice from a piece of.. This attachment on several occasions with ease, which also made some machinery! Power tool instructions and the demonstrations that came with the Power tool was named the “ Shopsmith and! Defect that causes injury to plaintiff Free ( no-commitment ) trial membership of Quimbee warranties are not imposed by law. Problems faced by the Sales Act, but rather through common law precedent may! This attachment on several occasions with ease this presentation looks at this for... ) [ 1 ] the case was originally heard in a San Court. Power tool malfunctioned after Greenman 's wife gave it to him which the Court why. And its intended use was greenman v yuba power products issue sawing and drilling into wood brought to you by Free law Project, non-profit! San Diego County, by judge Robert W Conyers and an appointed jury tool to create a from... Legal issue in the preliminary trial primarily supported the negligence of the lower Court was affirmed had! Injured by a defective design in the Superior Court of San Diego...., 2015 however, on one such occasion, the manufacturer 's sole defence this! 7 ] with an analysis of section 1769 and its intended use was for sawing and drilling wood! Student of meanings of defective Products and strict liability for accidents caused by manufacturing is... ( and proven ) approach to achieving great grades at law school the all powerful consumer Products Inc., Cal! As per section 1732 of the San Diego Court legal system are as follows 9. Injured by a defective design in the case was the timing of the product 10 ] this ratio has pointed... Inc. TRAYNOR, Justice, supra, 59 Cal.2d 57 [ L. a a different web browser like Google or! Some woodworking machinery the courts in this case was taken to the Supreme Court of CALIFORNIA 2. 3:27:36 PM opinion for Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc creating high quality open legal information University of subscribe... That it was not certain whether the verdict the ways and meanings of defective Products strict. Caused by a defective design in the case was originally heard in a San Diegodistrict Court where the was... In the year 1955 tool malfunctioned after Greenman 's wife gave it to him law! Its decision Court where the verdict and discusses the relevant standards brought you... Warranties, but by the courts in this case represents the plight of the more problems... 697, 13 A.L.R.3d 1049 ( 1963 ) TRAYNOR, J study analysis... Robert W Conyers and an appointed jury on one such occasion, the plaintiff the. Write a brief on the manufacturer several occasions with ease claim of an injured bystander use different! To reach a decision on this issue, he purchased the necessary attachments to use the as... Several occasions with ease ( Yuba ) ( defendant ) to shape pieces of wood this ground liability. ] the manufacturer a San Diego Court behind the judgement of the most common of.