Product Defect Case Series
Crown Controls Corp. v. Corella, 98 Nev. 35, 639 P.2d 555 (1982).
Product: Power lift stacker
Injury: Crush injury
Mechanism of Injury: A power lift stacker tipped backwards onto Plaintiff
Nature of Defect:
- Defectively designed
- Defectively manufactured
- Failure to warn
Jury Verdict:
- $640,000
- $1,484,738.40 in 2016, per http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm
Issue on appeal:
- Jury Instruction
- Use/Misuse
Product Defect Law Categories:
Result:
Case Quotes:
[SAMPLE JURY INSTRUCTION EXAMINED AND APPROVED OF BY THE COURT]: Misuse of a product means a use which the designer and manufacturer could not reasonably foresee. The mere fact that a designer or manufacturer may not intend his product to be used in a certain way does not mean that using it in that way is a legal misuse of the product. If a designer and manufacturer should reasonably foresee that the product may be used in a way other than intended by him, such other use is not a misuse.
Crown Controls Corp. v. Corella, 98 Nev. 35, 37, 639 P.2d 555, 557 (1982).
Furthermore, although it is true that under strict liability a manufacturer is entitled to assume that his product will not be subjected to abnormal and unintended use, it is also true that use of a product in a manner which the manufacturer should reasonably anticipate is not misuse or abuse. General Electric Co. v. Bush, 88 Nev. 360, 498 P.2d 366 (1972). The instruction objected to merely repeats this principle.
Crown Controls Corp. v. Corella, 98 Nev. 35, 37, 639 P.2d 555, 557 (1982).