395.Greenman.v.Yuba.Power - William B Greenman Plaintiff...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
William B. Greenman, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Yuba Power Products, Inc., Defendant and Appellant; The Hayseed, Defendant and Respondent Supreme Court of California 59 Cal. 2d 57; 377 P.2d 897; 27 Cal. Rptr. 697 January 24, 1963 PRIOR HISTORY: APPEALS from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County. Robert W. Conyers, Judge. Action by buyer's donee of a power tool for breach of express and implied warranties and for personal injuries sustained while using the power tool. COUNSEL: Reed, Brockway & Ruffin and William F. Reed for Plaintiff and Appellant. Holt, Macomber, Graham & Baugh and William H. Macomber for Defendant and Appellant. Moss, Lyon & Dunn, Gerold C. Dunn and Henry F. Walker as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Defendant and Respondent. JUDGES: In Bank. Judge Traynor; Chief Judge Gibson and Judges Schauer, McComb, Peters, Tobriner, and Peek, concurred. OPINION BY: Judge Traynor OPINION [1] Plaintiff brought this action for damages against the retailer and the manufacturer of a Shopsmith, a combination power tool that could be used as a saw, drill, and wood lathe. He saw a Shopsmith demonstrated by the retailer and studied a brochure prepared by the manufacturer. He decided he wanted a Shopsmith for his home workshop, and his wife bought and gave him one for Christmas in 1955. In 1957 he bought the necessary attachments to use the Shopsmith as a lathe for turning a large piece of wood he wished to make into a chalice. After he had worked on the piece of wood several times without difficulty, it suddenly flew out of the machine and struck him on the forehead, inflicting serious injuries. About 10 1/2 months later, he gave the retailer and the manufacturer written notice of claimed breaches of warranties and filed a complaint against them alleging such breaches and negligence. [2] After a trial before a jury, the court ruled that there was no evidence that the retailer was negligent or had breached any express warranty and that the manufacturer was not liable for the breach of any implied warranty. Accordingly, it submitted to the jury only the cause of action alleging breach of implied warranties against the retailer 1
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
and the causes of action alleging negligence and breach of express warranties against the manufacturer. The jury returned a verdict for the retailer against plaintiff and for plaintiff against the manufacturer in the amount of $65,000. The trial court denied the manufacturer's motion for a new trial and entered judgment on the verdict. The manufacturer and plaintiff appeal. Plaintiff seeks a reversal of the part of the judgment in favor of the retailer, however, only in the event that the part of the judgment against the manufacturer is reversed. [3]
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Page1 / 5

395.Greenman.v.Yuba.Power - William B Greenman Plaintiff...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online