Product Defect Case Series

Stickelman v. Moroni, 97 Nev. 405, 632 P.2d 1159 (1981).

Product:

Injury:

Mechanism of Injury:

Nature of Defect:

Jury Verdict:

Issue on appeal:

Product Defect Law Categories:

Result:

Case Quotes:

On appeal appellants also suggest that the doctrine of strict liability in tort establishes the liability of EPS for the bees’ failure to pollinate. We do not agree. To support their strict liability argument appellants argue that they need prove only that the bees were defective, citing Ginnis v. Mapes Hotel Corp., 86 Nev. 408, 470 P.2d 135 (1970). We fail to follow appellants’ reasoning. In Ginnis this court adopted the following definition of defect in a strict liability setting: “those products are defective which are dangerous because they fail to perform in the manner reasonably to be expected in light of their nature and intended function.” Ginnis v. Mapes Hotel Corp., supra, 413. The purpose of the bees was to pollinate the alfalfa fields; the bees were not dangerous. The doctrine of strict liability has no application in the instant case.

Stickelman v. Moroni, 97 Nev. 405, 408, 632 P.2d 1159, 1161 (1981)