CitationGreenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc., 59 Cal. 2d 57, 377 P.2d 897, 27 Cal. Rptr. 697, 1963 Cal. LEXIS 140, 13 A.L.R.3d 1049 (Cal. 1963). Brief Fact Summary. The Plaintiff, William Greenman (Plaintiff), was injured when his Shopsmith combination power tool threw a piece of wood, striking him in the head. 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. Synopsis of Rule of Law. Individuals injured by products with design or manu ...
Search Results
Baxter v. Ford Motor Co
CitationBaxter v. Ford Motor Co., 168 Wash. 456, 12 P.2d 409, 1932 Wash. LEXIS 853, 88 A.L.R. 521 (Wash. 1932) Brief Fact Summary. The Appellant, Baxter’s (Appellant), eye was injured when the windshield of his car shattered. Appellant claimed that the trial court improperly excluded evidence in printed materials produced by the Respondent, Ford Motor Company (Respondent), claiming that the windshield was shatterproof. Synopsis of Rule of Law. Representations set forth by a manufacturer whose falsehood cannot be readily detected by a buyer may be relied on by the buyer regardless of an ...
Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc
CitationHenningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc., 32 N.J. 358, 161 A.2d 69, 1960 N.J. LEXIS 213, 75 A.L.R.2d 1 (N.J. 1960). Brief Fact Summary. The Plaintiff, Henningsen (Plaintiff), was injured when the steering gear in her car failed. Plaintiff brought suit claiming negligence, but the case was dismissed by the trial court due to a disclaimer contained in the sales contract for the car. Synopsis of Rule of Law. Manufacturers cannot unjustly disclaim the implied warranty of merchantability when such disclaimers are clearly not the result of just bargaining. ...
Sandy v. Bushey
CitationSandy v. Bushey, 124 Me. 320, 128 A. 513, 1925 Me. LEXIS 25 (Me. 1925). Brief Fact Summary. The Plaintiff, Sandy (Plaintiff), was injured when he was kicked by the Defendant, Bushey’s (Defendant), horse. Defendant knew that the horse had vicious propensities. Synopsis of Rule of Law. Contributory negligence is not a bar to recovery for an action in strict liability. ...
MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co
CitationMacPherson v. Buick Motor Co., 1914 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5051, 161 A.D. 906, 145 N.Y.S. 1132 (N.Y. App. Div. Jan. 21, 1914). Brief Fact Summary. The Plaintiff, Donald MacPherson (Plaintiff), bought a car from a retail dealer and was injured when a defective wheel collapsed. The Plaintiff sued the Defendant, Buick Motor Co. (Defendant), the original manufacturer of the car, on an action for negligence. Defendant had purchased the faulty wheel from another manufacturer and Defendant failed to inspect the wheel. Synopsis of Rule of Law. If a product is reasonably expected to be danger ...
Foster v. Preston Mill Co
CitationFoster v. Preston Mill Co., 44 Wn.2d 440, 268 P.2d 645, 1954 Wash. LEXIS 300 (Wash. 1954). Brief Fact Summary. Vibrations from the Defendant, Preston Mill Co’s (Defendant), blasting operations caused the Plaintiff, B.W. Foster’s (Plaintiff) mother mink to kill her kittens. Plaintiff brought an action against Defendant claiming absolute liability. Synopsis of Rule of Law. When strict liability is applicable, it will be confined to the consequences, which lie within the extraordinary risk created by the abnormally dangerous activity. ...
Golden v. Amory
CitationGolden v. Amory, 329 Mass. 484, 109 N.E.2d 131, 1952 Mass. LEXIS 603 (Mass. 1952). Brief Fact Summary. The Plaintiffs, Golden and others (Plaintiffs), claim that Defendant, Amory’s (Defendants), negligence in maintaining a dike caused them real estate damage after a hurricane resulted in a flood. Synopsis of Rule of Law. Plaintiffs are not responsible under strict liability theories when the damage caused was an unanticipated act of God. ...
Bridges v. The Kentucky Stone Co., Inc
CitationBridges v. Kentucky Stone Co., 425 N.E.2d 125, 1981 Ind. LEXIS 825 (Ind. Sept. 1, 1981). Brief Fact Summary. Injuries occurred from an intentional dynamite blast at the Plaintiff, Bridges’ (Plaintiff) home. Plaintiff sued the Defendants, the Kentucky Stone Co. and William Webb (Webb)(Defendants), claiming that they negligently stored dynamite and other ultra- hazardous explosives at its plant. Synopsis of Rule of Law. This Court holds that the determination of whether the storage of dynamite is an ultra-hazardous activity must be made on a case-by-case basis. ...
Indiana Harbor Belt R.R. Co. v. American Cyanamid Co
CitationInd. H. B. R.R. Co. v. Am. Cyanamid Co., 916 F.2d 1174, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 18324, 21 ELR 20360, 32 ERC (BNA) 1228 (7th Cir. Ill. Oct. 18, 1990). Brief Fact Summary. The Defendant, American Cyanamid Co. (Defendant) manufactured a dangerous chemical, which was spilled during transportation. The Plaintiff, Indiana Harbor Belt R.R. Co. (Plaintiff) sued the Defendant, claiming that the transportation of the chemical was an abnormally dangerous activity. Synopsis of Rule of Law. The determination of whether an activity is abnormally dangerous depends on the application of several factors, ...
Rylans v. Fletcher
CitationIn the Exchequer Chamber, L.R. 1 Ex. 265, (1886). View this case and other resources at: Brief Fact Summary. Defendants constructed a reservoir to supply their mill. The reservoir flooded a mine worked by plaintiff, through no fault of defendant. Synopsis of Rule of Law. When a non-natural use of land is made, the defendant is absolutely responsible for damages occurring to others due to the non-natural use. ...
Shuck v. Means
CitationShuck v. Means, 302 Minn. 93 (Minn. 1974) Brief Fact Summary. An automobile owned by Hertz, leased to George A. Codling (Codling) and driven by David Lynn Means (Means) struck an automobile in which Shuck was a passenger. Means was uninsured and the parties stipulated he had been negligent. Synopsis of Rule of Law. Under the Minnesota Safety Responsibility Act (the Act), when an owner gives permission to another to drive his car, who in turn gives permission to a third party, the owner will be liable for accidents caused by the third person. ...
Smalich v. Westfall
CitationSmalich v. Westfall, 440 Pa. 409 (Pa. 1970) Brief Fact Summary. A car driven by the Defendant, Felix Rush Westfall (Defendant), was involved in an accident. The owner of and a passenger in the vehicle driven by Defendant was killed in the accident. The Plaintiffs, Marco Smalich, Executor of the Estate of Julia Smalich (Plaintiff), the deceased and other family members brought suit. The trial court determined that recovery could not be allowed because the contributory negligence of the Defendant must be imputed to the owner. Synopsis of Rule of Law. This Court determines that contri ...
Maloney v. Rath
CitationMaloney v. Rath, 69 Cal. 2d 442 (Cal. 1968) Brief Fact Summary. The Defendant, Ramona M. Rath’s (Defendant) collision with the Plaintiff, Kathleen Maloney (Plaintiff) was caused by a mechanic’s negligent effort to repair her brakes. The trial court rendered judgment in favor of the Defendant and the Plaintiff appealed, claiming that the brake repair was a nondelegable duty. Synopsis of Rule of Law. Generally when an activity carries the risk of death or serious bodily injury on cannot avoid liability for negligent maintenance by delegating the maintenance to an independ ...
Popejoy v. Steinle
CitationPopejoy v. Steinle, 820 P.2d 545 (Wyo. Nov. 8, 1991) Brief Fact Summary. Connie Steinle (Ms. Steinle) and her daughter, while they were on the way to buy a calf, were involved in a car wreck with Richard Popejoy (Mr. Popejoy). Ms. Steinle was killed in the accident. The Plaintiffs, Mr. Popejoy and Doris Popejoy (Plaintiffs) brought a suit against the Defendants, personal representatives of Ms. Steinle’s husband’s estate (Defendants), under a joint venture theory. Synopsis of Rule of Law. An interest in profit is necessary in order to impose vicarious liability on a part ...
Murrell v. Goertz
CitationMurrell v. Goertz, 1979 OK CIV APP 25 (Okla. Ct. App. May 1, 1979) Brief Fact Summary. The Appellant, Murrell (Appellant) and Bruce Goertz (Goertz) had an altercation that resulted in Goertz striking Appellant. The Appellant sued Goertz and the Appellee, his employer Oklahoma Publishing Company (Appellee), claiming that Appellee was liable under respondeat superior. Appellee and Goertz claim that Goertz was an independent contractor. Synopsis of Rule of Law. Those who employ independent contractors are not liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior. ...
Lundberg v. State
CitationLundberg v. State, 25 N.Y.2d 467 (N.Y. 1969) Brief Fact Summary. John Sandilands (Mr. Sandilands) was involved in an automobile wreck with John Lundberg (Mr. Lundberg), killing Mr. Lundberg. Mr. Sandilands was driving to his job with the State of New York at the time and the Plaintiff – Respondent, Mr. Lundberg’s widow (Respondent) brought suit against the Defendant – Appellant, the State of New York (Appellant), under a respondeat superior theory. Synopsis of Rule of Law. As a general rule, an employee is not within the scope of his employment when driving to and ...
Fruit v. Schreiner
CitationSchreiner v. Fruit, 519 P.2d 462 (Alaska 1974) Brief Fact Summary. The Appellant, Fruit (Appellant), was attending social and business events at a required sales convention held by his employer. While returning from an attempt to meet colleagues at a social setting, Appellant struck Appellee #1, John Schreiner’s (Appellee #1) car, crushing Appellee’s legs. Appellee #1 sued both the Appellant and Appellee #2, the Equitable Life Assurance Society (Appellee #2) his employer. Synopsis of Rule of Law. The determination of whether or not an employee is acting within the scope ...
DeLong v. Erie County
CitationDe Long v. County of Erie, 89 A.D.2d 376 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep’t Nov. 9, 1982) Brief Fact Summary. Emilia DeLong (Ms. DeLong) called 911 and in response to her report of an intruder was assured that help was on the way. Police were directed to an incorrect address and Ms. DeLong was stabbed to death. After Ms. Delong’s death, the Respondents, Dennis S. DeLong, Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of DeLong (Respondents), brought suit. Synopsis of Rule of Law. When a municipality voluntarily assumes a duty and negligently performs the duty, the municipality may ...
Deuser v. Vecera
CitationDeuser v. Vecera, 139 F.3d 1190 (8th Cir. Mo. Mar. 26, 1998) Brief Fact Summary. Albert Deuser (Mr. Deuser), found to be drunk and obnoxious at a fair, was arrested and then released by National Park Rangers. After being released, Mr. Deuser wandered into a street and was killed. The Appellants, Mr. Deuser’s survivors (Appellants), brought a claim against the Appellees, the United States and certain individuals including David Vecera (Mr. Vecera)(Appellees), under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). Synopsis of Rule of Law. The discretionary function exception to the FTCA dis ...
Riss v. New York
CitationRiss v. New York, 22 N.Y.2d 579 (N.Y. 1968) Brief Fact Summary. The Plaintiff, Linda Riss (Plaintiff), was continuously harassed by a jilted lover, who eventually paid someone to throw lye in Plaintiff’s face, seriously injuring her. Plaintiff asked for protection from the police on multiple occasions, but received little or no help. Synopsis of Rule of Law. Police authorities are not liable for failing to provide special protection to individuals threatened with harm. ...
Abernathy v. Sisters of St. Mary’s
CitationAbernathy v. Sisters of St. Mary’s, 446 S.W.2d 599 (Mo. 1969) Brief Fact Summary. The Plaintiff, Abernathy (Plaintiff), allegedly sustained injuries when the Defendant, Sisters of St Mary’s (Defendant), employee negligently failed to assist him as he moved from his bed to the bathroom. Plaintiff brought suit and the trial court granted Defendant’s motion for summary judgment based on the doctrine of immunity for charitable organizations. Synopsis of Rule of Law. The reasons for the common law rule of immunity for nongovernmental charitable organizations are no lon ...
Ayala v. Philadelphia Board of Public Education
CitationAyala v. Philadelphia Bd. of Public Education, 453 Pa. 584 (Pa. 1973) Brief Fact Summary. The Appellants, William Ayala and William Ayala Jr. (William Jr.) (Appellants), brought suit to recover damages after William Jr.’s arm was injured in a shredding machine during class. The Appellee, Philadelphia Board of Education (Appellee), asserted governmental immunity, and the Superior Court affirmed the defense. Synopsis of Rule of Law. The defense of governmental immunity is no longer applicable in Pennsylvania. ...
Freehe v. Freehe
CitationFreehe v. Freehe, 81 Wn.2d 183, 500 P.2d 771, 1972 Wash. LEXIS 721 (Wash. 1972) Brief Fact Summary. The Plaintiff, Clifford Freehe (Plaintiff), was injured on a negligently maintained tractor owned by the Defendant, Hazel Knoblauch (Defendant), his wife. Plaintiff had no interest in the tractor or the farming operation. Plaintiff brought suit, Defendant claimed interspousal immunity. Synopsis of Rule of Law. The Supreme Court of Washington abandoned the interspousal immunity rule, allowing spouses to bring suit against one another in tort. ...
Renko v. McLean
CitationRenko v. McLean, 346 Md. 464 (Md. July 30, 1997) Brief Fact Summary. The Plaintiff, Natasha Renko (Plaintiff), was seriously injured while a minor, when the Defendant, her mother Teresa McLean (Defendant) drove their car into the back of another vehicle. Plaintiff sued Defendant requesting that the court recognize an exception to the parent-child immunity doctrine. Synopsis of Rule of Law. The parent-child immunity doctrine disallows suits between children and parents for torts occurring during the child’s minority. ...
Teeters v. Currey
CitationTeeters v. Currey, 518 S.W.2d 512 (Tenn. 1974) Brief Fact Summary. The Defendant, Currey (Defendant), negligently performed a surgery on the Plaintiff, Teeters (Plaintiff) that was intended to prevent future pregnancy. Plaintiff did not discover the negligence until three years later when she gave birth. Plaintiff sued and Defendant answered claiming the statute of limitations as a bar to recovery. Synopsis of Rule of Law. Under Tennessee law, the statute of limitations in medical malpractice actions begins to run when the plaintiff discovers, or reasonably should have discovered t ...