Sunday, November 30, 2014

Huset v. Threshing Mach. Co. case brief summary

Huset v. Threshing Mach. Co. case brief summary
Year: 1903  
Huset = laborer employed by Pifer
Threshing = sold thresher to Pifer
Huset was injured when he fell through a weak covering onto fast-moving cylinder. Laborer sued manufactuerer.
§         General Rule = Manufacturer is not liable in negligence to 3rd parties that are not in contract with him.

§         There are 3 Exceptions
1.      Product is imminently dangerous + intended to affect human life.
·        Ex. Thomas – pharmacist mistakenly substituted poison for drug.
2.      Owner impliedly invites someone to use defective product. B/c owner knew others wld use.
·        Ex. Coughtry – contractor invited onto owner’s scaffold, which skirts privity.
·        Fiction = no real invitation
3.      Product is imminently dangerous + injury is reasonably anticipated.
·        Ex. Langridge – dealer rep’d that gun was made by respected manuf; the gun blew up.
·        Even with 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.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Search Thousands of Case Briefs and Articles.