RICHTER V. LIMAX INTERNATIONAL, INC.
45 F.3d 1464 (1995)
NATURE OF THE CASE: Richter (P) appealed a grant of a motion for judgment as a matter of
law.
FACTS: P purchased a mini-trampoline from D. There were no instructions but it did have
sticker on it stating: 'This product was designed to be used only as an exercise device. It
is not designed to be used for acrobatics, trampolining or any springboard type activities.'
P used the trampoline for jogging. P eventually increased her time up to sixty minutes per
day. P experienced severe pain in her ankles while walking. A doctor diagnosed her as having
stress fractures in her ankles. P sued D for failure to warn. P testified the pain forced
her to discontinue her work as a sales representative for a furniture manufacturer. P
produced expert testimony which established relatively simple tests would have revealed the
dangers. P's expert witnesses testified that long-term use of the trampoline could cause
stress fractures in the affected ankle bones. D admitted it conducted no tests relating to
the long-term effects of jogging on the mini-trampoline and did not systematically review
published studies of mini-trampolines by sports medicine and exercise specialists. P's
complaint about stress fractures was the first D had received. P got the verdict for
$472,712 reduced by P's percentage of fault of thirty-eight percent. D moved for judgment as
a matter of law in that P had failed to prove that D had knowledge of the danger. The
district court held that D had no duty to warn about dangers it might have discovered by
conducting reasonable tests. 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