Daly v. General Motors Corp. case brief summary
575 P.2d 1162 (Cal. 1978)
CASE FACTS
Decedent, who was intoxicated and not wearing his seatbelt or using his door locks, died in a car crash after his door opened on impact and he was thrown from the car. Plaintiffs, decedent's family, sued defendants, the car manufacturer and distributor, in a products liability action for defective design of the door latch. The jury found for the defendants, and the trial court entered judgment accordingly.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
The court reversed the lower court's judgment because the trial court's admission of evidence, without a limiting instruction, that decedent was intoxicated and had failed to use safety equipment constituted prejudicial error.
Suggested Study Aids For Tort Law
575 P.2d 1162 (Cal. 1978)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Plaintiffs appealed from a
judgment for defendants in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County
(California) in a products liability action.CASE FACTS
Decedent, who was intoxicated and not wearing his seatbelt or using his door locks, died in a car crash after his door opened on impact and he was thrown from the car. Plaintiffs, decedent's family, sued defendants, the car manufacturer and distributor, in a products liability action for defective design of the door latch. The jury found for the defendants, and the trial court entered judgment accordingly.
DISCUSSION
- On appeal, the court reversed because the trial judge committed prejudicial error when he allowed defendants to introduce evidence without a limiting instruction that decedent had been drunk and not using safety devices.
- The court also held that, in future, comparative negligence principles would apply to strict products liability actions.
- Evidence of compensating design characteristics installed in a motor vehicle by its manufacturer to offset design deficiencies is admissible.
CONCLUSION
The court reversed the lower court's judgment because the trial court's admission of evidence, without a limiting instruction, that decedent was intoxicated and had failed to use safety equipment constituted prejudicial error.
Suggested Study Aids For Tort Law
No comments:
Post a Comment