Case 3

Chen Qu

BLAW 371

Case 3

August 3, 2015

Facts:

Plaintiff Greenman saw a Shopsmith demonstrated by the retailer and he studied the brochure prepared by the manufacturer. His wife bought it to him on the Christmas in 1955, Greenman wanted using this Shopsmith for his hom workshop. In 1957, he bought some attachments to use the shopsmith to make chalice by a piece of wood. It was easy for him to work on this wood, but the wood suddenly flew out of the machine and struck him on his head. It results his serious injuries. After some months, the retailer and the manufacturer received a written notice of warranties by Greenman and he also filed a complaint against the retailer and the manufacturer alleging such breaches and negligence.

History:

After a trial before a jury, the court said that there was no support the retailer was negligent or breached any express warranty. At the same time, the manufacturer was not liable for the breach of any implied warranty. Therefore, it just submitted to the jury the cause of action alleging breach of implied warranties against the retailer and the causes of action alleging negligence and breach of express warranties against the manufacturer. The jury returned a verdict for the retailer against plaintiff and for plaintiff against the manufacturer. The Superior Court rendered the judgment on the verdict. Then, the manufacturer and the plaintiff appealed. Finally, the Supreme Court affirmed.

Issue:

1): Does the plaintiff should give a notice of breach of warranty within a reasonable time to the manufacturer?

2): Is a manufacturer is strictly liable for the user when the manufacturer’s brochure is untrue?

Decision:

1): No

2): Yes

Reasons:

1): The manufacturer contends that the plaintiff didn’t give it a notice in a reasonable time and therefor the plaintiff’s charges is barred.

From the Section 1769 of the Civil Code, it provides: ‘In the absence of express or implied agreement of the parties,...