Sunday, November 30, 2014

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

No comments:

Post a Comment

Search Thousands of Case Briefs and Articles.