William Timmonss Case Study

Appellee, William Timmons, is a Raytheon Company employee and has been employed there for six months. While attempting to change the drill tap in a JLX 250 vertical milling machine manufactured by appellant Acme Machine Co, the tap suddenly ejected from the machine, penetrating his left eye and causing permanent loss of vision in that eye. The JLX 250 is designed so that an adapter fits into the machine and a collet and collet nut attach to the adapter and also hold on the tap. Timmons removed the tool-holder assembly from the JLX 250 and secured it inside a bench vice, which was also manufactured and sold by Acme. While loosening the collet nut, the collet pushed upwards but was stopped by the nut, transferring the weight into the tap and causing it to eject upwards. Timmons filed a suit against Acme on the basis that Acme negligently designed the JLX 250 and bench vice assembly, and that

First off, negligence requires that there was a foreseeable danger. There is no way that Acme could have foreseen its drill tap ejecting into the air “like a second stage rocket,” as put by Dr. David Allen Colling, Timmons’ expert witness. We refer to the Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad case in which the Appeals Court made a judgment for Long Island Railroad, determining that it wouldn’t be foreseeable that a woman across the station would be injured by exploding fireworks. Much the same in our case, it is unreasonable to assume that anyone would have been able to expect a straightforward tool such as a drill tap to eject into the air with the power that it did, injuring the person working on it. In cases of negligence, it must be determined that there was a duty owed and that that duty was broken. The risk reasonably to be perceived defines the duty to be obeyed, and Acme fulfilled its duty by taking the necessary precautions to avoid any foreseeable injury from its