VALK MANUFACTURING CO. V. RANGASWAMY 537 A.2d 622 (1988) CASE BRIEF

VALK MANUFACTURING CO. V. RANGASWAMY

537 A.2d 622 (1988)

NATURE OF THE CASE: Valk (D) sought review of a judgment, which denied its crossclaim against, county for contribution, awarded Rangaswamy (P), the deceased's widow and child, a monetary award, and denied D's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.

FACTS: P was driving and came to a stop at an intersection. C&P Telephone's truck partially blocked the intersection. P purportedly looked both left and right. He then accelerated into the intersection directly into the path of a dump truck owned by Montgomery County. The vehicles collided. The dump truck had a snowplow hitch mounted on its front. No snowplow was attached to the hitch. The hitch contained a steel lift arm measuring 20 inches in length. The lift arm projected 29 inches beyond the radiator and bumper of the truck. Movement of the lift arm was controlled by a hydraulic cylinder held in place by two 3-inch cotter pins. By removing the lower cotter pin, the lift arm would drop to a flush position. The lift arm protruded inside P's car and P and P died of multiple injuries to the head and chest. Ps brought a wrongful death action. Two defendants, C & P Telephone Company and Montgomery County, were sued under theories of negligence. D was sued under theories of negligence and strict liability in tort. D was the manufacturer of the snowplow hitch which was attached to the Montgomery County dump truck. D, in turn, filed a cross-claim against Montgomery County. C & P Telephone Company settled for a joint tort-feasors release. A motion for judgment was granted in favor of Montgomery County. A motion for judgment was also granted in favor County on the cross-claim of D. The trial judge ruled that the deceased was contributorily negligent as a matter of law. The case proceeded to the jury on the strict liability count against D. A jury verdict in the amount of $2,500,000 was returned against D. D's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or, in the alternative, a motion for new trial was denied. 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.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner