Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc.

Supreme Court of California · 1963 · Torts

Tortsproducts liabilitystrict liabilitydefective productstrict liabilitymanufacturer liabilitydefective designdefective manufacture

Facts

Plaintiff received a Shopsmith, a combination power tool manufactured by Yuba and sold by a retailer, after seeing it demonstrated and reading the manufacturer's brochure. Later he bought attachments to use it as a lathe, and while using it to turn wood, the wood suddenly flew out and struck his forehead, seriously injuring him. Plaintiff introduced expert testimony that defective design and construction, including inadequate set screws that allowed vibration to move the tailstock, caused the accident and that safer fastening methods were available. About ten and one-half months later, he gave written notice of claimed warranty breaches and sued for breach of warranties and negligence.

Issue

Whether the manufacturer could avoid liability because plaintiff did not give timely notice of breach of warranty under Civil Code section 1769, and whether plaintiff had to establish an express warranty to recover against the manufacturer. More broadly, the court considered whether a manufacturer is strictly liable in tort for injuries caused by a defective product placed on the market for use without inspection for defects.

Rule

A manufacturer is strictly liable in tort when it places on the market a product, knowing that it is to be used without inspection for defects, and the product proves to have a defect that causes injury to a human being. To establish liability, it is sufficient that the plaintiff prove he was injured while using the product in a way it was intended to be used, as a result of a defect in design and manufacture of which he was not aware, that made the product unsafe for its intended use. The notice requirement of Civil Code section 1769, developed for parties to a sale, does not bar an injured consumer's action against a remote manufacturer on such a theory.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Sacramento, Elena Ruiz buys a countertop dough mixer made by Sierra Crest Appliance Works from a local kitchen store. The mixer has a hidden manufacturing defect in the blade coupling, and while Elena is mixing bread dough in the ordinary way, the blade assembly breaks loose and severely cuts her hand.

If Elena sues Sierra Crest Appliance Works, which is the strongest basis for recovery under the majority rule?

Explanation. The majority rule imposes strict liability in tort on a manufacturer that places a product on the market, knowing it will be used without inspection for defects, when a defect causes injury to a human being. It is enough that Elena was injured while using the product as intended, due to a hidden defect making it unsafe for intended use. Privity, retailer negligence, and proof of an express guarantee are not required. (Derived from Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc. (1963).)