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
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