Greenman V. Yuba Power Summary

Facts and History
The plaintiff, William B. Greenman filed a case against Yuba Power on after 10 and a half months when he injured himself while he was using a ‘Shopsmith’ that was given to him by his wife for Christmas in 1955 who bought the power tool from a retailer (Greenman V. Yuba Power, 1963).
The plaintiff file the case against both retailer and the manufacturer of the Shopsmith. The plaintiff the demonstration of the Shopsmith by the said retailer and he had studied the brochure that was given by the manufacturer (Greenman V. Yuba Power, 1963). And in 1957 the plaintiff had bought attachments that was necessary to use the Shopsmith as a lathe for turning a large piece of wood into a chalice (Greenman V. Yuba Power, 1963)it suddenly

Strict Liability in Tort is the tort that manufacturers are strictly liable for defective products. Questions that may asked by the court are: Was the product defective? Did the defect create an unreasonably dangerous product or instrumentality? Was the defect a proximate cause or substantial factor of the injury? Did the injury cause damages?

The issue being faced by this case is that does the requirement in the Uniform Sales Act that buyer gave the seller notice of breach of warranty require a notice of breach of warranty between parties?

Will it be sufficient that the plaintiff is able to prove that he was injured while using the product in a way that it was intended to be used and the result of the injury was caused by a defect in design and manufacture of which plaintiff was not aware of and that the defect had made the product unsafe to use and that will it violate the express warranty of the

This is sufficient to extablish manufacturer’s liability. And since the defect is not the cause by the action of plaintiff, the manufacturer should be held responsible for the injury.
The existence of the Shopsmith in the market makes consumer believe that it is user friendly and that it would safely do the jobs for which it was built, allowing it to be irrelevant to manufacturer’s liability for injury sustained by consumer whether consumer selected machine because of statement in manufacturer’s brochure or because of machine’s own appearance of excellence that belied defect lurking beneath surface or whether the plaintiff assumed that the Shopsmith would safely do the