Showing posts with label WELGE V. PLANTERS LIFESAVERS CO. 17 F.3d 209 (1994). Show all posts
Showing posts with label WELGE V. PLANTERS LIFESAVERS CO. 17 F.3d 209 (1994). Show all posts

WELGE V. PLANTERS LIFESAVERS CO. 17 F.3d 209 (1994) CASE BRIEF

WELGE V. PLANTERS LIFESAVERS CO.
17 F.3d 209 (1994)
NATURE OF THE CASE: Welge (P) appealed a summary judgment for Planters (D) in P's suit for product liability after a jar shattered, cut, and permanently impaired P's hand.
FACTS: Karen Godfrey bought a 24-ounce vacuum-sealed plastic-capped jar of D peanuts for P at a K-Mart store in Chicago. Godfrey needed proof of her purchase of the jar of peanuts to get a $2 rebate on another product and used an Exacto knife to remove the part of the label that contained the bar code. About a week later, P took some peanuts, replaced the cap, and returned the jar to the top of the refrigerator. A week after that P took down the jar, removed the plastic cap, spilled some peanuts into his left hand to put on his sundae, and replaced the cap with his right hand--but as he pushed the cap down on the open jar the jar shattered. P's hand was severely cut and permanently impaired. P sued in product liability. (Planters made the product, Brockway made the jar, and K-mart sold the goods). Ds moved for summary judgment. The district judge granted the motion in that P had failed to exclude possible causes of the accident other than a defect introduced during the manufacturing process. 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.

https://bsmsphd.com




© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner

WELGE V. PLANTERS LIFESAVERS CO. 17 F.3d 209 (1994) CASE BRIEF

WELGE V. PLANTERS LIFESAVERS CO.
17 F.3d 209 (1994)
NATURE OF THE CASE: Welge (P) appealed a summary judgment for Planters (D) in P's suit for product liability after a jar shattered, cut, and permanently impaired P's hand.
FACTS: Karen Godfrey bought a 24-ounce vacuum-sealed plastic-capped jar of D peanuts for P at a K-Mart store in Chicago. Godfrey needed proof of her purchase of the jar of peanuts to get a $2 rebate on another product and used an Exacto knife to remove the part of the label that contained the bar code. About a week later, P took some peanuts, replaced the cap, and returned the jar to the top of the refrigerator. A week after that P took down the jar, removed the plastic cap, spilled some peanuts into his left hand to put on his sundae, and replaced the cap with his right hand--but as he pushed the cap down on the open jar the jar shattered. P's hand was severely cut and permanently impaired. P sued in product liability. (Planters made the product, Brockway made the jar, and K-mart sold the goods). Ds moved for summary judgment. The district judge granted the motion in that P had failed to exclude possible causes of the accident other than a defect introduced during the manufacturing process. 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.

https://bsmsphd.com




© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner