Huset v. Threshing Mach. Co. case brief summary

Huset v. Threshing Mach. Co. case brief summary

Year: 1903  

Parties

Huset = laborer employed by Pifer

Threshing = sold thresher to Pifer

Facts: 

Huset was injured when he fell through a weak covering onto the fast-moving cylinder. Laborer sued the manufacturer.

Holding

§         General Rule = Manufacturer is not liable in negligence to 3rd parties that are not in contact with him.

Analysis

§         There are 3 Exceptions

1.      The product is imminently dangerous + intended to affect human life.

·        Ex. Thomas – pharmacist mistakenly substituted poison for the drug.

2.      Owner impliedly invites someone to use the defective product. B/c owner knew others would use.

·        Ex. Coughtry – contractor invited onto owner’s scaffold, which skirts privity.

·        Fiction = no real invitation

3.      The product is imminently dangerous + injury is reasonably anticipated.

·        Ex. Langridge – dealer reported that gun was made by a respected manufacturer; the gun blew up.

·        without out privity, the dealer knew it was imminently dangerous, which skirts privity.

§         This case is the 3rd exception = You know people are going to walk on it & it must hold weight.

§         Knew the cover was weak

§         Concealed the weakness

§      He knew it was imminently dangerous.

Support us by: 
•Visiting: http://www.fbdetox.com to rid yourself of that social media addiction.
•Checking out our amazing store on Etsy: http://www.bohobuttons.com