BOWLING V. HEIL COMPANY
511 N.E.2d 373 (1987)
NATURE OF THE CASE: Bowling (P) administratrix of husband's estate, sought review of
judgment of Court of Appeals which affirmed jury verdict finding Heil (D) negligent and
strictly liable for husband's death, but remanded case for reduction of money judgment to
that percentage of fault assigned to D by the jury.
FACTS: Bowling (P) delivered gravel to his residence using a dump truck with a hoist
system manufactured by Heil (D). After dumping the gravel, the truck bed would not return to
the down position. P leaned underneath over the truck chassis to see what was wrong. P then
grabbed the lever on the pump valve assembly and manipulated it. The bed rapidly descended
and killed P instantly. The jury found P contributorily negligent and damages were assessed
at $1.75 million. The jury determined that D was both negligent and strictly liable, that P
was contributorily negligent but that he had not assumed a known risk, and that the
following percentages of fault were attributable to P, D, and Robco: to D, forty percent; to
P, thirty percent; and to Robco, thirty percent. The court of appeals affirmed the jury's
verdict, but remanded the case with directions to enter judgment against D in the amount of
$700,000 only, representing forty percent of $1.75 million. D appealed.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment