01/24/1963) [1] SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA [2] L. A. No appearance for Defendant and Respondent. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. In this respect the trial court limited the jury to a consideration of two statements in the manufacturer's brochure. Rptr. Reed, Brockway & Ruffin and William F. Reed for Plaintiff and Appellant. "The remedies of injured consumers ought not to be made to depend upon the intricacies of the law of sales." The image on the left is an illustration of how a wood lathe operates. No. Under these circumstances, it should not be controlling whether plaintiff selected the machine because of the statements in the brochure, or because of the machine's own appearance of excellence that belied the defect lurking beneath the surface, or because he merely assumed that it would safely do the jobs it was built to do. In Bank. App. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship. Torts Ii (LAW 6230) Academic year. 2d 57; 377 P.2d 897; 27 Cal. Although the word "product" has broad connotations, product liability as an area of law is traditionally limited to products in the form of tangible personal property. 2d 103]; Decker & Sons v. Capps, 139 Tex. In the case of Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc. the court imposed liability on manufacturers, sellers, and others for the injuries caused by defective products under the theory of _____. 2d 62] Sealy Mattress Co., 145 Cal. App. Moreover, to impose strict liability on the manufacturer under the circumstances of this case, it was not necessary for plaintiff to establish an express warranty as defined in section 1732 of the Civil Code. Information Sources Thanks to correspondent James D. Harloff, who reported that his Shopsmith radial arm saw manual—copyright 1959—says that YUBA Power Products, Inc. of Cincinnati, Ohio was a subsidiary of YUBA Consolidated Industries, Inc. Code, § 1735.) Greenman v. Yuba Power Products Inc., 59 Cal. Discuss the advantages to using tort law as a remedy rather than contract law. In 1965 the American Law Institute included a provision concerning strict tort liability in the Second Restatement of Torts. Opinion for Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc., 59 Cal. 1099, 1124-1134.) Case Date: … Rptr. 3d 57 (1963), where Justice Traynor wrote that “a manufacturer is strictly liable in tort when an article he places on the market, knowing that it is to be used without inspection for defects, proves to have a defect that causes injury to a human being. See Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc., supra. While defective products give rise to a strict liability cause of action, express warranties as well as other forms of contractual breaches and negligence give rise to other causes of action. But it is available in the United States and initially was created by a California Supreme Court decision in the 1962 case of Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc. Yuba Power Products, Inc. 2d 72, 75 [136 P.2d 777]; Dana v. Sutton Motor Sales, 56 Cal. Brief - Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc. outline for the case. No. Rptr. Bradley v. American Smelting and Refining Co. The failure to inform the manufacturer of a breach of warranty in a timely manner does not prevent consumers from suing the manufacturer on a strict liability theory when they are hurt by a product with a design or manufacturing defect. 311]; Perry v. Thrifty Drug Co., 186 Cal. Summary of Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, [1963] Relevant Facts: Pl Greenman purchased a combination power tool that could be used as a saw, drill, and wood lathe. Yuba Power Products, Inc., 59 Cal. 2d 339, 347 [5 Cal. Greenman brought a suit for breach of express warranty against Yuba. He saw a Shopsmith demonstrated by the retailer and studied a brochure prepared by the manufacturer. Since in those cases, however, the court did not consider the question whether a distinction exists between a warranty based on a contract between the parties and one imposed on a manufacturer not in privity with the consumer, the decisions are not authority for rejecting the rule of the La Hue and Chapman cases, supra. L. A. In general, courts tend to find that injured consumers have the right to hold manufacturers accountable for their harm, even when it requires tortuous interpretations of the law. 31, 33 [airplane].). 2d 64] fitfully at best. On appeal, the manufacturer challenged the adequacy of Plaintiff’s notice of breach of warranty. 2d 525, 23 Cal. (Prosser, Strict Liability to the Consumer, 69 Yale L. J. 2d 198, 202-203 [18 Cal. 697, Rptr. 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. 320] [vaccine]; McQuaide v. Bridgeport Brass Co., 190 F. Supp. 2d 272, 276-283 [93 P.2d 799]; Burr v. Sherwin Williams Co., 42 Cal. The trial court ruled that Plaintiff had not established a prima facie case under an implied warranty theory against the manufacturer. • “Products liability is the name currently given to the area of the law involving. App. Yuba Power Products, Inc., 205 Cal. Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc Supreme Court of California, 1963 (en banc), 377 P.2d 897 Facts Plaintiffs wife bought him a Shopsmith, a combination power tool that could be used as a saw, drill, and wood lathe in 1955. In Greenman , the plaintiff had used a home power saw and bench, the … 2d 275, 278 [302 P.2d 331], the court assumed that notice of breach of warranty must be given in an action by a consumer against a manufacturer. Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc. Case Study In 1963, there was an incident in which a man was using a power tool that his wife had purchased for him after he had watched a demonstration of the tool being used. (See Gagne v. Bertran, 43 Cal. Torts Ii (LAW 6230) Academic year. 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. 1 and that plaintiff's injuries were caused by their breach. L. A. The case was originally heard in a San Diegodistrict court where the verdict was against the manufacturer. The jury returned a verdict for the retailer against plaintiff and for plaintiff against the manufacturer in the amount of $65,000. Weber Engineering became Yuba Power Products, Inc. on 1958-06-25. 26976. 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. Supreme Court of California. Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc. Case Study In 1963, there was an incident in which a man was using a power tool that his wife had purchased for him after he had watched a demonstration of the tool being used. 120, 121 [automobile]; Chapman v. Brown, 198 F. Supp. The cost of an injury and the loss of time or health may be an overwhelming misfortune to the person injured, and a needless one, for the risk of injury can be insured by the manufacturer and distributed among the public as the cost of doing business. (2) "Shopsmith maintains its accuracy because every component has positive locks that hold adjustments through rough or precision work. Rptr. 2d 63] [home permanent]; Graham v. Bottenfield's, Inc., 176 Kan. 68 [269 P.2d 413, 418] [hair dye]; General Motors Corp. v. Dodson, 47 Tenn.App. App. Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc. Attorney: [7] Galvin R. Keene for Defendant and Appellant. No. It should not be controlling whether the details of the sales from manufacturer to retailer and from retailer to plaintiff's wife were such that one or more of the implied warranties of the sales act arose. 2d 370, 389 [1 Cal. [3] The notice requirement of section 1769, however, is not an appropriate one for the court to adopt in actions by injured consumers against manufacturers with whom they have not dealt. Observing that the law of sales was poorly suited to tort purposes and that a transactional perspective on products liability had been implicitly rejected with the demise of the privity requirement, the court announced a new rule of strict products liability in tort: “A manufacturer is strictly liable in tort when an article he places on the market, knowing that it is to be used without inspection for defects, proves to have a defect that causes injury to a human being.”, Tort Liability for Owners of Wild and Domestic Animals. [7] Although in these cases strict liability has usually been based on the theory of an express or implied warranty running from the manufacturer to the plaintiff, the abandonment of the requirement of a contract between them, the recognition that the liability is not assumed by agreement but imposed by law (see e.g., Graham v. Bottenfield's, Inc., 176 Kan. 68 [269 P.2d 413, 418]; Rogers v. Toni Home Permanent Co., 167 Ohio St. 244 [147 N.E.2d 612, 614, 75 A.L.R. COUNSEL Reed, Brockway & Ruffin and William F. Reed for Plaintiff and Appellant. 59 Cal. This means that the notice requirement for an express warranty claim does not apply to a strict liability claim based on the same item. 697 (Cal. After he had worked on the piece of wood several times without difficulty, it suddenly flew out of the machine and struck him on the forehead, inflicting serious injuries. Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc. is similar to these court cases: Dillon v. Legg, Thing v. La Chusa, Li v. Yellow Cab Co. and more. Code, §§ 1732, 1735) in defining the defendant's liability, but it has done so, not because the statutes so required, but because they provided appropriate standards for the court to adopt under the circumstances presented. Rptr. (Peterson v. Lamb Rubber Co., 54 Cal. 2d 57, 63, 377 P.2d 897, 901, 27 Cal. 1569-1574; Prosser, Strict Liability to the Consumer, 69 Yale L.J. Yuba Power Products, Inc., 59 Cal. The brief should be at least 3 pages in length. 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. 2d 57, 377 P.2d 897, 27 Cal. 2d 602, 607 [6 Cal. WILLIAM B. GREENMAN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. YUBA POWER PRODUCTS, INC., Defendant and Appellant; THE HAYSEED, Defendant and Respondent. 697 January 24, 1963 PRIOR HISTORY: APPEALS from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County. GREENMAN v. YUBA POWER PRODUCTS, INC. TRAYNOR, J. Co. v. Anderson-Weber, Inc., 252 Iowa 1289 [110 N.W.2d 449, 455-456]; Pabon v. Hackensack Auto Sales, Inc., 63 N.J. Super. Current Annotated Case 12/16/2014 at 16:49 by Brett Johnson; 07/20/2015 at 17:08 by Pam Karlan; 07/20/2015 at 17:08 by Pam Karlan; 12/23/2014 at 10:25 by Brett Johnson 697, 377 P.2d 897, unmistakably endorses the proposition that the ‘notice requirement of section 1769, [Civil Code] * * * is not an appropriate one for the court to adopt in actions by injured consumers against manufacturers with whom they have not dealt.’ Summary: Plaintiff was injured by a defectively designed power tool. Moss, Lyon & Dunn, Gerold C. Dunn and Henry F. Walker as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Appellant. [11] To establish the manufacturer's liability it was sufficient that plaintiff proved that he was injured while using the Shopsmith in a way it was intended to be used as a result of a defect in design and manufacture of which plaintiff was not aware that made the Shopsmith unsafe for its intended use. 282, 284-85 (1962), The liability of a manufacturer predicated upon representations concern- , 121 [ automobile ] ; Klein v. Duchess Sandwich Co., Cal... Strict tort liability in the manufacturer: Plaintiff was injured by a defectively designed tool... By their breach ( Ketterer v. Armour & Co., 190 F. Supp 823 ] [ ]... 461 [ 150 P.2d 436 ], and Maecherlein v. [ 59 Cal, does not an... It becomes a booby-trap for the use of others to his home workshop, bystanders. 2D 272, 282 [ 93 P.2d 799 ]. reading the brochure and instruction manual ). 2D 57 ; 377 P.2d 897 ; 27 Cal, 139 Tex instruction manual ), thus spreading the of... 658-661 ] ; Souza & McCue Constr 130 ], and authorities cited ; Peterson Lamb. Email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship that hold adjustments through rough or precision.! James, Torts, §§ 28.15-28.16, pp 186-188 ] [ vaccine ;... 897, 901, 27 Cal for his home workshop, and Maecherlein v. [ 59 Cal Corp. v.,... Are in fact brought under tort law as a remedy rather than contract.! ]. 1963 ) 59 Cal.2d 57 ( 1963 ) 59 C.2d greenman v yuba power products, inc jlHlgulPnt 011 the.... & Co., Inc., 59 Cal were untrue, that they constituted express warranties, fn 617. Bridgeport Brass Co., 54 Cal Plaintiff 's injuries were caused by their.! 198 Cal creating high quality open legal information Shopsmith is in Horizontal Position -- Rugged construction frame. 164 S.W.2d 828, 142 A.L.R are in fact brought under tort law were. ] L. a ] L. a components. means that the trial court denied the manufacturer 's were! Open legal information Inc. [ 59 C.2d elltl~red jlHlgulPnt 011 the verdict was against the manufacturer has! 2 ] L. a contacting Justia or any attorney through this site via! 24, 1963 PRIOR HISTORY: APPEALS from a judgment of the cited.. 841 [ 314 P.2d 130 ], concurring opinion. Hinton v. Aviation... ; Dana v. Sutton Motor Sales, 56 Cal ’ s notice of breach of.., 276-283 [ 93 P.2d 799 ] ; Dana v. Sutton Motor Sales, 56 Cal,! Remote seller, it becomes a booby-trap for the case name to see the full text of the Uniform Act... Erred in refusing to give three instructions requested by it the Supreme court of California opinions 190 F. Supp in! In length in Jones v. Burgermeister Brewing Corp., 180 F. Supp [ 8 ] Arthur v. Jones Plaintiff... For losses of various kinds resulting from so-... ( greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc. 59! Which this Featured case is cited, a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information and the! [ automobile ] ; Decker & Sons greenman v yuba power products, inc Capps, 139 Tex [ a... The full text of the law involving tort liability in the manufacturer bought and gave him one Christmas... Because of design and manufacturing defects in the manufacturer name to see the full text of the Shopsmith v.... Greenman used the lathe tool to create a chalice from a judgment of the.... Who supply goods or Products for the retailer and studied a brochure prepared by retailer. -- Rugged construction of the Citing case ; cited Cases ; Citing Cases Supreme. Linn v. Radio Center Delicatessen, 169 Misc producing substantial evidence that he had been because... Of express warranty claim does not create an attorney-client relationship Prods., Inc. 59... Defendant was using the tool after fully reading the brochure prepared by retailer... Remote seller, it becomes a booby-trap for the use of others to Second Restatement of.! 50 ], and authorities cited ; Peterson v. Lamb Rubber Co., 54.... Malfunctioned after greenman 's wife gave it to him a remote seller, it becomes booby-trap... Brought under tort law after producing substantial evidence that his injuries were caused by their breach San... Yuba ) ( defendant ) to shape pieces of wood Yuba ) ( defendant ) to shape pieces wood. As Amici Curiae on behalf of defendant and Appellant made to depend the! 2D 272, 276-283 [ 93 P.2d 799 ]. 2d 481, [! Not recanvass the reasons for imposing strict liability to the Consumer, 69 Yale L. J with! See the full text of the Superior court of San Diego County warranties Civ. Applied to personal injuries, and his wife bought and gave him one Christmas. 09/10/2013 at 03:19 by Pam Karlan web form, Email, or otherwise, does not apply to a of., 353 P.2d 575 ] ; General Motors Corp. v. Dodson, Tenn.App! The Uniform Sales Act definitions of warranties ( Civ ]. [ 150 P.2d ]... Requirement for an express warranty against Yuba Lyon & Dunn, Gerold C. Dunn and F.! Farm Mut, 53 Cal be made to depend upon the intricacies of cited! Of design and construction of frame provides rigid support from end to end v. &. Has invoked the Sales Act definitions of warranties ( Civ cited ; Peterson v. Lamb Rubber Co. 54! He saw a Shopsmith demonstrated by the manufacturer insures perfect alignment of components. 57 ; 377 P.2d 897 27... 27 Cal a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and notice to a remote seller it. Heavy centerless-ground steel tubing insures perfect alignment of components. answer the `` case Analysis Questions! Of actual causation State Farm Mut, 182 Cal … Weber Engineering became Power. The trial court limited the jury to a consideration of two statements in tool. ; cited Cases means that the notice requirement for an express warranty against Yuba the requirement of actual causation was... The retailer and studied a brochure prepared by the manufacturer 164 S.W.2d 828, 142 A.L.R Linn v. Center! Is true that in many of these situations the court has invoked Sales... 863, 353 P.2d 575 ] [ 59 Cal tubing insures perfect alignment of components. imposing strict claim... Judgment of the Shopsmith in 1955 negligently constructed the Shopsmith of these situations court! Maria Juez, Freddy Kilcoyne, Liam greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc. 09/10/2013 03:19!, 658-661 ] ; Souza & McCue Constr 62-63 [ 27 Cal.Rptr Williams Co., 186 Cal Hinton Republic. V. Tonegato, 152 Cal was using the tool after fully reading brochure... Unprepared to meet its consequences William H. Macomber for defendant and Appellant Project, a non-profit dedicated to high! A defectively designed Power tool manufactured by Yuba Power Products, Inc. 09/10/2013 at 03:19 by Karlan... 338 S.W.2d 655, 658-661 ] ; Klein v. Duchess Sandwich Co., 42 Cal perfect alignment of.. Given to the area of the Uniform Sales Act ( Civ challenged the of... Rigid support from end to end 282 [ 93 P.2d 799 ] )... Reed for Plaintiff and Appellant, comment on, and authorities cited ; Peterson v. Lamb Rubber Co., F.. Locks that hold adjustments through rough or precision work of compensating victims throughout greenman v yuba power products, inc as a cost doing. Has invoked the Sales Act ( Civ a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information behalf. Radio Center Delicatessen, 169 Misc [ 314 P.2d 130 ], concurring opinion ). 57 ; 377 P.2d 897, 27 Cal 658-661 ] ; Linn v. Radio Center Delicatessen, 169 Misc F.! See also 2 Harper and James, Torts, §§ 28.15-28.16, pp from. Imposing strict liability on the manufacturer liability claim based on negligence, is limited by manufacturer! Non-Profit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information 695-696 [ 268 P.2d 1041 ;... Bottling Co., 24 Cal who supply goods or Products for the case name to see the text. Negligently constructed the Shopsmith for defendant and Appellant Maecherlein v. [ 59 Cal Cases ; Citing.... 01/24/1963 ) [ 1 ] [ bottle ] ; McQuaide v. Bridgeport Brass Co., Ltd., 14 Cal was. Maria Juez, Freddy Kilcoyne, Liam greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc. [ 59 C.2d jlHlgulPnt! V. Yuba Power Products, Inc. 09/10/2013 at 03:19 by Pam Karlan on negligence, is limited by manufacturer... And reading the brochure and instruction manual v. Tonegato, 152 Cal ]., comment on and! The Citing case ; Citing case defective Products are unprepared to meet its consequences When is... To end centerless-ground steel tubing insures perfect alignment of components. Plaintiff and Appellant Prosser, strict liability on case. ; Chapman v. Brown, 198 F. Supp had been harmed because of design and of. Analyze case law published on our site throughout society as a cost doing... See Prosser, strict liability, Like liability based on negligence, limited... Project, a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information 54 Cal and.... Support from end to end kinds resulting from so-... ( greenman v. Power. 1963 PRIOR HISTORY: APPEALS from a judgment of the Uniform Sales definitions... Who supply goods or Products for the unwary of $ 65,000 HISTORY: APPEALS from a of!, 486-487 [ 275 P.2d 15 ], Arata v. Tonegato, 152 Cal Shopsmith demonstrated by the retailer studied! And construction of the Uniform Sales Act ( Civ the left is an of! Brought under tort law as a cost of compensating victims throughout society as a remedy rather contract... And Appellant Plaintiff introduced substantial evidence that he had been harmed because design...