Yuba Product Liability Case

Greenman v. Yuba Power Products Facts In the case of Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, the facts are focused around Simon Greenman. In 1963, Greenman, a resident of California, purchased a Shopsmith woodworking machine from Yuba Power Products. This Shopsmith is a multipurpose woodworking machine meant for applications such as: sanding, drilling, and planing. While using the machine for its designated purpose, however, a piece of wood that Greenman was working on was shot back and struck his face, causing serious injury. This injury was severe enough to prompt Greenman into filing a lawsuit against Yuba Power Products, the manufacturer of the Shopsmith. Greenman filed the suit on the basis that the product of Yuba Power Products was defective

History The large part of the history behind the case is the evolution of product liability laws in California and the United States. Prior to the establishment of the laws provided by this case and others through the 20th century, many people injured by products could only win their respective cases if they could prove negligence on the manufacturers behalf. Before Greenman’s case, there were several others that unsuccessfully tried to win product liability cases in the state of California and across the nation. Some of them include: Escola v. Coca Cola and Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors. In the case of Henningsen, a steering mechanism failed in a vehicle, which led to the injury of the driver. This case then led to a court’s decision to hold companies liable under their warranty terms, which was a step in the direction of Greenman’s

Yuba Power Products, the California Supreme Court reached a unanimous decision in favor of the plaintiff. This makes all manufacturers liable for injuries that happen because of faulty or defective products that they produce. One of the court’s deciding factors in this case was consumer protection. The California court recognized that defective products are a danger to consumers, and that all consumers should be able to rely on the safety and functionality of a product that they have purchased, and that manufacturers are responsible for producing these safe products. Along with consumer protection, the court saw a need to recognize economic realities. This was supported by stating that an average consumer does not have the expertise, knowledge, or resources to evaluate products for safety concerns themselves. This promotes fairness in the economy and also places the responsibility of product safety onto manufacturers. While the consumers might lack the expertise to evaluate product safety, the court also supports the fact that manufacturers have the ability, knowledge, and resources to test their products and evaluate them for safety themselves. In summary, the California Supreme Court adopted the law supporting strict liability for manufacturers using the reasoning of consumer protection, economic realities, manufacturer expertise, along with several other supporting