Cases Flashcards
MacPherson v. Buick Motor
“Issue
Does a manufacturer owe a duty of care to their consumer? (car wheel broke apart during driving)
Holding
Yes
Rule
If the nature of a thing is reasonably certain to place life and limb in peril if negligently made, and if the manufacturer knows the intended user will use with out new tests, the manufacturer has a duty..”
Escola v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Fresno
“Case Name
Escola v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Fresno
Issue
Exploding coke bottle. Basis of liability for injuries caused by products.
Holding
Yes
Rule
Traynor’s Rule:
a manufacturer incurs absolute liability when the article he has:
1. placed in the market
2. knowing that it will be used without inspection
3. proves to have a defect
4. defect causes injury to human beings”
Casa Clara Condominium Assoc. v. Charley Toppino & Sons
“Case Name
Casa Clara Condominium Assoc. v. Charley Toppino & Sons
Issue
Is there product liability when there has been no damage to property or person? Defective cement case.
Holding
No
Rule
Product liability does not award economic damages. There must be harm to a person or property for there to be recovery”
Speller v. Sears
“Case Name
Speller v. Sears
Issue
Fridge fire case. How must a plaintiff prove manufacturing defects?
Holding
Yes
Rule
(1) Manufacturing defect exists when a product deviates from the intended design even if all possible care was exercised in manufacturing.
(2) Defect must exists at time of sale.
(3) Injury must be of a kind ordinarily the result of a defect (res ipsa)
(4) Injury not solely the result of something other than defect.”
Volkswagen of America, Inc. v. Young
“Case Name
Volkswagen of America, Inc. v. Young
Issue
VW bug seat flies off in accident. Bolted to floors not frame. Does product liability (design defect) extend to injuries caused by misuse?
Holding
Yes
Rule
- Mfr. liable for defective in design which the Mfr. could reasonably foresee would cause or enhance injuries during crashes.
- Reasonable care for foreseeable risks so long as the danger was not patent or obvious to the user. This includes foreseeable misuse.”
Motor Vehicle Fatalities Statistics
“Case Name
Motor Vehicle Fatalities Statistics
Issue
Holding
Rule
“
Barker v. Lull Engineering Co.
“Case Name
Barker v. Lull Engineering Co.
Issue
Whether the instruction ““unreasonably dangerous for its intended use”” was erroneous considering the users expectation that it would perform on an incline.
Holding
Yes
Rule
(1) The plaintiff proves that the product failed to perform as safely as an ordinary CONSUMER WOULD EXPECT when used in an intend ed or REASONABLY FORESEEABLE MANNER, or
(2) the plaintiff proves that the product’ s design proximately caused injury and the defendant fails to prove, in light of the relevant factors, that on BALANCE the BENEFITS of the challenged design OUTWEIGH the RISK OF DANGER inherent in such design . . . .
BARKER FACTORS:
1. the GRAVITY of the danger,
2. the LIKELYHOOD of the danger,
3. the mechanical FEASIBILITY of the alternative safer design,
4. the financial COST of the IMPROVED DESIGN, and
5. the ADVERSE CONSEQUENCES to the product and to the consumer of the alternative design
“
Linegar v. Armour of America
"Case Name Linegar v. Armour of America Issue Cop body armor case from notes. Holding N/A Rule Open and obvious can be considered as part of consumer expectations and unreasonably dangerous. Juries and courts may not substitute their own judgment on the tradeoff of safety for other performance features that are not simply cost!!!"
Miscallef
"Case Name Miscallef Issue Printing press case in notes, guy sticks finger in gets cut off, one dollar to make safer. Holding N/A Rule Reasonable care will involve balancing the LIKELYHOOD and GRAVITY of harm against the BURDEN of the precaution"
Adames v Beretta website
"Case Name Adames v Beretta website Issue is a gun manufacturer liable for design defect when a child shoots his friend with a gun that has no magazine defect? Holding No Rule Design Defect vs Arms Dealers: prohibits cases vs manufacturers for the harm caused by the VOLITIONAL, CRIMINAL act when the product functioned as designed and intended."
MacDonald v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp.
"Case Name MacDonald v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp. Issue Whether a manufacturer has a duty to directly warn consumers of oral controceptives. Holding Yes Rule EXCEPTION to learned intermediary rule: Manufacturers of contraceptives must warn consumers directly (more informed consumers, less frequent visits w/ doctor)"
Vassallo v. Baxter Healthcare Corp.
“Case Name
Vassallo v. Baxter Healthcare Corp.
Issue
Whether the mfr of silicon breastplants can be liable for risks they didn’t discover till years after they sold?
Holding
No
Rule
A D will not be held liable under failure to warn about risks that were not reasonably foreseeable at the tie of sale or could not have been discovered by way of reasonable testing prior to marketing the product.
However, may be liable if they failed to warn once they discovered the defect at a later time.
(remanded to find out WHAT they should have known, and WHEN they should have known it)(requires post market surveilance)”
Hood v. Ryobi
“Case Name
Hood v. Ryobi
Issue
Guy takes guards off saw, saw blade flies off cuts his thumb, saw had 8 warnings. How specific and exhaustive must product warnings be?
Holding
No
Rule
○ Warning need only be reasonable under the circumstances
○ Manufacturer need not warn of every mishap or source of injury that the mind can imagine flowing from the product
○ Adequate = whether the benefits of a more detailed design outweigh the costs of requiring the change”
Daly v. General Motors Corp
"Case Name Daly v. General Motors Corp Issue Guy driving a car, doors not locked seatbelt not on, depsite good warning. Does comparative negligence apply to product liability? Holding Yes Rule Comparative negligence applies to product liability cases. Some JX bar recovery if P's fault is over 50%."
Wyeth v. Levine
"Case Name Wyeth v. Levine Issue Drug injected into ladys arm resulted in amputation. Warning failed to express dangers of injection. Whether FDA approvals of drug labels preempt claims under state laws that have higher requirements for drug warning labels? Holding No Rule - generally speaking Fed law sets the floor on warnings. State laws are not preempted unless they are contrary to Fed law or there is an express provision (barretta)"
