Every Bundle includes the complete text from each of the titles below:
PLUS: Hundreds of law school topic-related videos from
The Understanding Law Video Lecture Series™:
Choose Your Subscription:
--OR--
Register and Subscribe Now
Every Bundle includes the complete text from each of the titles below:
PLUS: Hundreds of law school topic-related videos from
The Understanding Law Video Lecture Series™:
Choose Your Subscription:
--OR--
Brief Fact Summary.
Plaintiff, injured in a lawnmower accident, sued Defendant in a product liability action. A dispute arose as to the scope of available discovery of material about alternative lawnmower fuel cap designs and lawnmower layouts.
Synopsis of Rule of Law.
In a product liability case, material regarding designs or components most similar to the one at issue should be most discoverable; material regarding less common designs or components should be less discoverable and for more limited purposes.
If no similar costs are borne by the plaintiff in complying with the defendant's discovery demands, the costs to the defendant may induce it to agree early in the litigation to a settlement favorable to the plaintiff.
View Full Point of Law
Plaintiff was severely injured in an accident involving a lawnmower and its gasoline fuel tank. He sued Defendant in a product liability action. A dispute arose as to the scope of discovery of material about alternative lawnmower fuel cap designs and lawnmower layouts. The parties disputed what was discoverable about parts or motors that were not directly involved in the accident.
Issue.
What alternative designs or design components are discoverable in a product liability case?
Held.
Material regarding alternative designs or design components that are the most similar to the designs and design components at issue should be the most widely discoverable.
Discussion.
The most important factor in determining the scope of discovery in a product liability case involving discovery of material regarding alternative designs or design components is the extent of similarity to the designs and design components at issue. The court also considered whether the contested discoverable design or components could achieve the same functionality as the one that caused the accident; whether the same safety testing would be employed for the contested discoverable design or components and the one that caused the injury; whether the contested discoverable design or component was a distinct system or interchangeable component; and whether the discovering party supported its request with adequate testimony by a knowledgeable witness.