Confirm favorite deletion?
Torts keyed to Robertson
Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc.
Citation:Supreme Court of California, 1963. 59 Cal.2d 57, 377 P.2d 897.
ProfessorMelissa A. Hale
CaseCast™ – "What you need to know"
Only StudyBuddy Pro offers the complete Case Brief Anatomy*
Access the most important case brief elements for optimal case understanding.
*Case Brief Anatomy includes: Brief Prologue, Complete Case Brief, Brief Epilogue
- The Brief Prologue provides necessary case brief introductory information and includes:
- Topic: Identifies the topic of law and where this case fits within your course outline.
- Parties: Identifies the cast of characters involved in the case.
- Procedural Posture & History: Shares the case history with how lower courts have ruled on the matter.
- Case Key Terms, Acts, Doctrines, etc.: A case specific Legal Term Dictionary.
- Case Doctrines, Acts, Statutes, Amendments and Treatises: Identifies and Defines Legal Authority used in this case.
- The Case Brief is the complete case summarized and authored in the traditional Law School I.R.A.C. format. The Pro case brief includes:
- Brief Facts: A Synopsis of the Facts of the case.
- Rule of Law: Identifies the Legal Principle the Court used in deciding the case.
- Facts: What are the factual circumstances that gave rise to the civil or criminal case? What is the relationship of the Parties that are involved in the case. Review the Facts of this case here:
Plaintiff saw a demonstration using the Defendant’s combination power tool and studies a brochure about it from the Defendant. Plaintiff bought the product and some of its accompanying attachments. Plaintiff was working on a piece of wood when it flew out of the machine and struck him on the forehead causing him serious injuries. Months later, Plaintiff gave notice of claimed breach of warranties to the Defendant and filed a complaint alleging the breaches and complaints.
At trial, Plaintiff introduced evidence that his injuries were caused by defective design and construction of the Defendant’s combination power tool. His expert witness testified that the parts of the machine were held together by defective screws leading normal vibrations to cause the piece of wood to fly out of it. Additionally, the expert testified that there were better ways of fastening the parts of the machine together which would have prevented the accident. The Plaintiff argued that this could lead the jury to reasonably believe that the Defendant negligently constructed the product and that the statements in the Defendant’s brochure were false, constituting a breach of express warranties.
The Defendant argued that the Plaintiff did not give notice of breach of warranty within a reasonable time and as such that cause of action was barred by 1769 of the Civil Code. As the Defendant did not know whether the verdict against them was based on the breach of warranty cause of action or the negligence cause of action, they argue that presenting the breach of warranty cause of action to the jury was prejudicial.
- Issue(s): Lists the Questions of Law that are raised by the Facts of the case.
- Holding: Shares the Court's answer to the legal questions raised in the issue.
- Concurring / Dissenting Opinions: Includes valuable concurring or dissenting opinions and their key points.
- Reasoning and Analysis: Identifies the chain of argument(s) which led the judges to rule as they did.