McCORMACK V. HANKSCRAFT CO.
278 Minn. 322 (1967)
NATURE OF THE CASE: This was an appeal from a judgment n.o.v.
FACTS: P was severely injured by burning when she tripped over a vaporizer manufactured
by D. The vaporizer consisted of three different parts, an aluminum pan, a 1-gallon glass
jar and a black plastic cap to which is fastened a black plastic heating chamber tube. The
design was such that the water in the jar would gush out instantaneously when the vaporizer
tipped over. The unit could be tipped over with a slight force of 2 lbs. Water is heated in
the unit to 212 degrees Fahrenheit. The temperature on the outside of the jar ranges from
172-182 degrees. The water would cause third degree burns in a 5-year-old child. The
instruction book furnished by D did not disclose the scalding temperature of the water in
the jar nor was there any warning given at to the dangers that could result if the unit were
accidentally upset. P's mother justifiably relied on D's claim that the unit was safe,
practically foolproof and tip proof. P called two expert witnesses whose qualifications in
the field of product design were unquestioned. Both testified that the unit was defectively
designed and that the defects could have been easily remedied by several practical and
inexpensive alternative designs. D contends that anyone touching the jar would realize and
conclude that the water in the jar is very hot. Judgment went to P but the judge ordered
judgment n.o.v. and a new trial. P 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