Gulf Refining v. Williams case brief summary
F: Ruled in favor of P (Williams), and D appealed.
P/Appellee: Willaams
D/Appellant: Gulf Refining
P brought action against D for the injuries that he suffered when attempting to open a can of gasoline that he bought from D
I: In circumstances where company who has a duty to inspect its drum and its repair, however didn’t do, whether
company is liable for damages done to employee under the negligence
R: individual may be liable in neg. even if his/her conduct creates a risk of harm which is highly improbably and unlikely.
A:durm had been in use 9 yrs, that the threadsin the bung cap were broken, that this condition had been brought about
by repeated hammering on the bung cap during the course of its use – a condition which had attracted the attention of
one of employees before the drum was sent out on this occasion.
C:affirmed
Co:
Consequence (Damage or loss)
F: Ruled in favor of P (Williams), and D appealed.
P/Appellee: Willaams
D/Appellant: Gulf Refining
P brought action against D for the injuries that he suffered when attempting to open a can of gasoline that he bought from D
I: In circumstances where company who has a duty to inspect its drum and its repair, however didn’t do, whether
company is liable for damages done to employee under the negligence
R: individual may be liable in neg. even if his/her conduct creates a risk of harm which is highly improbably and unlikely.
A:durm had been in use 9 yrs, that the threadsin the bung cap were broken, that this condition had been brought about
by repeated hammering on the bung cap during the course of its use – a condition which had attracted the attention of
one of employees before the drum was sent out on this occasion.
C:affirmed
Co:
Consequence (Damage or loss)
No comments:
Post a Comment