Campo v. Scofield

Citation. Campo v. Scofield, 301 N.Y. 468, 95 N.E.2d 802

Powered by

Law Students: Don’t know your Bloomberg Law login? Register here

CitationCampo v. Scofield, 301 N.Y. 468, 95 N.E.2d 802, 1950 N.Y. LEXIS 781 (N.Y. 1950)

Brief Fact Summary. No facts given.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. Under products liability a manufacturer is not responsible for obvious and known dangers of products.

Points of Law - Legal Principles in this Case for Law Students.

Such permission did not obligate the lender Landes to guard against injury from a patent peril or from a source manifestly dangerous.

View Full Point of Law

Issue. Under products liability, is a manufacturer responsible for obvious and known dangers of products?

Held. No.
* There is no duty under products liability to make a machine accident proof or foolproof. There is no duty to guard against injury resulting from deterioration, or to furnish a machine that will last for a longer time period. The manufacturer is under no duty to guard against a patent peril or from a source manifestly dangerous.
* The manufacturer has the right to expect that persons will do everything necessary to avoid possible injuries.

Discussion. Strict liability is not absolute liability. People are still expected to use common sense when handling a potentially dangerous product.