Research Paper On Greenman V. Yuba Power Products Inc. (Essay Sample)

Name
Instructor
Course
Date
Greenman v. Yuba Power Products Inc.
Facts
Greenman, the plaintiff, forwarded an action for vandalism against the manufacturer or producer and the retailer or vendor of a Shopsmith, an integration power device or tool which would be utilized as a wood lathe, drill and saw. He had received the Shopsmith as a gift for Christmas from his companion (wife) in the year 1955. In the year 1957, he purchased the essential attachments required to utilize the Shopsmith as a wood lathe (Darden, William and Barry, 70). After working on this particular wood piece severally with no obstacles, the wood abruptly flew out of the appliance and hit him on his forehead, causing parlous injuries. After a period of 10 ½ months, Greenman gave the manufacturer and the retailer a written notification of asserted contraventions of warranties and registered or filed a protestation against them attesting such negligence and breaches. After a court trial in the presence of the jury, the court’s ruling was that there was no proof that the vendor was neglectful or had infringed any express warranty specified and that the producer or manufacturer was not responsible for the infringement of any suggested warranty. Consequently, it presented to the jury the justification of action attesting neglectfulness and violation of implied or suggested warranties against the vendor or retailer and the justifications of action attesting neglectfulness and contravention of express warranty against the producer or manufacturer. Afterwards, the jury gave back adjudication for the retailer or vendor against the plaintiff and for the plaintiff, Greenman against the producer in the value of $65,000.
Issue
Is the producer or manufacturer strictly responsible in tort whenever he places an article in the market, with the knowledge or knowing that it is to be utilized without the scrutiny for defects or deficiency, proves to possess a shortcoming that prompts an injury to human beings.
Decision and reasoning
The judgment or decision was affirmed (Schwartz and Victor, 208). A manufacturer or producer is strictly accountable in tort whenever he presents an article on the market, with the knowledge that the article is to be utilized with no scrutiny for defects or deficiencies, proves to possess a defect that prompts an injury to human beings.
To inflict strict accountability or liability on a producer under these particular instances of case or issue, it was not essential for the plaintiff, Greenman, to substantiate an express warranty. A manufacturer or producer is strictly accountable in tort whenever he presents an article on the market, with the knowledge that the article is to be utilized with no scrutiny for defects or deficiencies, proves to possess a defect that prompts an injury to human beings. The aim of such accountability is to insure that the cost or value of injuries acquired from defective merchandise or products are brought about by the manufacturers or producers who expose such merchandise on the market as opposed to the injured individuals who are defenseless to protect their selves (Vari, Nicholas and Michael, 290). Implicit in the appliance’s presence or availability in the market was an indication that the machine would perform their specified jobs safely (Newton, 66). To develop the manufacturer’s or producer’s liability, it was satisfactory that the plaintiff, Greenman, proved that he had been injured when he attempted to use the machine (Shopsmith) in a manner it was preconceived to be utilized, as a result of deficiency in design and assemblage or manufacture, whereby the plaintiff wasn’t aware that ht manufactured Shopsmith was unsafe for its purposeful use.
Dissenting Opinion and Personal Opinion
The rules that define and govern warranties that were established to meet or to satisfy the needs of transactions that are commercial cannot be appropriately invoked to address or govern the producer’s liability or responsibility to those injured or hurt by the defective merchandise unless those particular rules also accomplish the purposes for which these specified liabilities are imposed. The objective or purpose of such responsibility is to insure that the value or cost of the injuries that result from these defective products or merchandise are ...