Thursday, December 3, 2015

Daly v. General Motors Corp case brief

Daly v. General Motors Corp case brief
1978, California
Facts: Driver was thrown from his car in an accident because of an alleged defect with the door latch. Though there was evidence that he was drunk and did not use a harness. The jury found for the defendant. 
Decision: Reversed 
Reasoning: Injury must be caused as a result of a defect in the product and there is no liability when someone uses the product in an unforeseeable way. The court is looking at whether comparative negligence will ruin strict liability; strict liability is there to relieve injured consumers from the problems of proof inherent in negligence. Courts wanted to place the burden of loss on manufacturers rather than persons powerless to protect themselves. Comparative principles will not frustrate strict liability. The same principles apply, plaintiff does not have to prove negligence on part of defendant and injuries caused by a defective product remains strict.

The only change is that the plaintiff’s recovery is reduced only to the extent that his own lack of reasonable care contributed to the injury. The loss should be assessed equitably in proportion to the fault, even the plaintiff’s fault. 

Check out our eBook: How to Win at Law School to see how to transfer to a top school, get the top grades in your class, and get a head start on the legal profession!

No comments:

Post a Comment

The Evolution of Legal Marketing: From Billboards to Digital Leads Over the last couple of decades, the face of legal marketing has changed a l...