Confirm favorite deletion?
Torts keyed to Best
Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc.
Citation:27 Cal. Rptr. 697, 59 Cal. 2d 57, 377 P.2d 897 (1963)
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:
The Shopsmith is a powertool that can function as a saw, drill, and wood lathe. Plaintiff saw the Shopsmith demonstrated by a retailer and studied the brochure distributed by the manufacturer. Plaintiff’s wife bought him a Shopsmith powertool for Christmas 1955. In 1957, Plaintiff purchased the wood lathe attachments to make a wood chalice. After several uses without incident, the wood for the chalice flew out of the machine while the Shopsmith was on and struck the plaintiff in the forehead, injuring him. About 10 and a half months later, the plaintiff filed suit against the retailer and the manufacturer, alleging breach of impliedand express warranty, as well as negligence.
At trial, plaintiff produced substantial evidence that his injuries were caused by both a defect in the design and manufacturing of the Shopsmith. Specifically, an expert witness for the plaintiff testified that the set screws used to hold certain parts of the Shopsmith together were inadequate, causing normal vibration to move the tailstock of the lathe attachment away from the wood being turned in the lathe, and permitting the wood to fly out. The expert further testified that there were better ways to fasten the machine together that would have prevented plaintiff’s injuries.
On appeal, the manufacturer argues that plaintiff’s cause of action alleging breach of warranty should not have been submitted to the jury, because as a matter of law the claim was time-barredunder § 1769 of the Civil Code.
- 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.
- The Brief Prologue closes the case brief with important forward-looking discussion and includes:
- Policy: Identifies the Policy if any that has been established by the case.
- Court Direction: Shares where the Court went from here for this case.