Document vVD84QyMJzRq7Mnj8nyL2d96q

PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 1974, Commerce Clearing House, Inc. JUK 2^^UMBER 286 JUNE 12, 1974 This Issue consists of 48 pares. Decisions in This Report Asbestos Manufacturers Strictly Liable for Fatal Hines; Six asbestos maniifar.i::rers-\vere denied a rehearing .of the affirmation t\ the LJ. S. Court of Apnc.-.s for die JFotH Circuit or their strict kamlit. .on ai insulation worker's,terminal illness .contracted in his 33 years of work wit: independent contractors. Xone of the cautions against inhalation of aslesto placed on some_of the products intimated the danger of a fatal disease and th jury could have concluded that these cautions were r.ot warnings in the ser.^e tha they adequately communicated knowledge of the danger; so as :a give workers choice of working with a dangerous product. The jury, bv its verdict on the theor of strict liability, found in effect that this worker had r.ot assumed tile nsk bv voiun tartly7 continuing a:s employment with an appreciation c: the danger. Borel v. Fibreboard Paper Products Carp. (CA-5 Texas i, r 71;' Manufacturer Strictly Liable for Uncuarded Needle Assembly The manufacturer of a_syymg:e_isscnu)iy guac-iag- was strictly ikirie to injuries sustained by a worker when she slipped ` r. sort, waste w...t .-rw. ejected by tiie machine and -t'.ncti\ cl;v thrust hand rwatd. tciii-. it in the machine s '.rv.;t:..r.ic i needle absent .iv st-.f-rn. : ' L. ;. o tr; Appeals tk.r the gece'im C.ret:it sound ~ut'.-:an'.;ai e*. .ler.ce t. sup: ort the port rejection of the manufacturer's claim that it >impiy bum u special : arp /: machine in acc-moai-cv witii the purchaser's spectnc H'iicdcr r. SiusJcrb J'coi eh Jilufociurhtij F. CA-2 X.w York. ''71. Elevator /Aanurccrurer end Servicer Not Liable ro rnss-"g?r Xeither the manufacturer nor the servicer of a building - Iv. a tor v. a- i:..n for the injuries samamed by a secretary w hen the ao.a- c . i on 1: . The maim: elver uas iv t liable, n- a matter of l..w. are. - ..mg to the homa Supremo l > url, because the injured p.i-'enger tarn.: ; im- tlie '......... safety device'. '1 Ik re v.a.s Competent e\ idicnce t 'iip.1 ' t t' r I'.try ~ . in favor of the* service r. Idle iw-wnger was not entitled to li.e apple. ..la a A'c:Aniin'm .'.dour: puaeiSHcns oj topical, law r e r t s NEW YORK CHICAGO WASHINGTON SGP 0007596 Page 2 PRODUCTS LIABILITY REPORTS Number 286 niMiHBii^i^miifflta.iiu:;i ;:m;a;rPigeBUJfaiiJuiMiPli:,tiinnfiflmiij:jff:ritaini.BnuiiliM:ciiii!iuiirjr--1. i.umnn!tiBHn:nmmn<n:: .^ uii>uiiiit;L-;mtimTnciiiir!^r. rr the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur because the elevator was not in the exclusive control of the servicer. Seay v. General Elevator Co. (Oklahoma) 7195 Contributory Negligence Bars Negligence and Strict Liability Recovery The manufacturer of the ring base and outside rim of a wheel was not liable for injuries sustained by a truck owner when the wheel blew apart while he was inflating the tire. The injured person's contributory negligence barred recovery on both negligence and strict liability, according to the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. He. was squatting on jt he. tire. desgjte the manufacturer's warnings to stand awav during_thc ir.nationperiod. An essential element for recovery on strict liability is that the in.iured party would not have avoided his _injury_by the exercise of reasonable carer ` Bass v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. (CA-2 Xew York) ([ 7192 Res Ipsa Loqu/fur Appiied To Furnace Explosion On the theory, of res ipsa loquitur, the installer of a furnace was liable for damage to a residence (S7.000) and for the injury of its lessee (S40.000) when an elm leaf was found within the enclosed gas supply between the plunger and the valve seat in the solenoid valve, permitting gas to escape in explosive quantities. It was not necessary to prove that the defendant had control of the instrumentality when the injury occurred. Common experi ence dictated, to the Iowa Supreme Court, that there should jet have been an elm leaf in the enclosed gas control.valve. The thing spoke tor itself. Falleson v. Jctveil Cooperative Elevator (Iowa) 1 7191 Bystander Did Not Recover for Broken Bottle Injuries The bottler of a cola drink was not liable, as a matter of law. for breach of implied warranty when a bottle broke and injured a bystar. ter. The broken bottle was never identified ns a "coke'' battle. Furthermore, in the opinion of the Florida District Court of Aneal. there was no C:ov.-m.g thn: the in'vry was caused by a. o ke ` uttie or tin :_thc cuke I jttle was a_iangcruus instrumentality, so as to overcome the nr. require men: :r. \ -r:.ntv. "* .Cotte's :. Ci-c'U Ce "a C.:t.inn Co e~. . ter:: > l-..- .a; * 719-- No liability for Minor's injury from Thrown Dart Net the t ` injuries is: .o.. : .o.r ;. : u:c ?r:i':r r-..i ' >1 r th : w a d.w: in a \ cm ::9. arc ami it came dowi' behind him ami struck a coni', anion in the eye. The .'klah'im.a Supreme C-'itrt recn pruned to..: the a.mw. use of .y : ys c .9. t be per verted into ;t serous uw oi i.e-ign and role i that this art >.< n - '-.nr--' to an ext- " ' 1 e: . ...... . " ...... . v. : i :2 i fiv f.t- ; ' : ..\. d. ' l - s .i.` ; :c l k r >; ' <. .It It ins v. .ir,Dept. Store op Xorincn, Inc. (Cklahtma) `j 71^6 Damages Based on Rental Value for Down Time Improper The ui.'nuDcrurcr was liable for a purch..scr's losses in synchn. -t'ltig and regulating hw new grave l eru d..:'g plan;, i the ealeu in n oi mages <>t; rental value for me down time of the m o huie was error, aeeor-~g to the Michigan t nin i of Anpi d-.. I h.e use ot rental value is tUv'T ' .v when a pitot U a -rs I W'.II.ITV ' o; gs ;.t.l>l: .Ml ) Ml.,. aly tie >'> ::-n. ro- < if.- Iti.v Ine . v. r, -,.,i ,i., ..... iiinii.it u. suljurlpi.. ii r Of 'll.'. r ..-..r. ;-{ i.;.* p.ud ai (. Mov.*. Illln.'is. Kn. CSV., June l'J. r/T-l. i'rl.v.ol L S A. All rights ns is nl. SGP Number 216 PRODUCTS LIABILITY REPORTS ...................................................... . Page 3 substitute chattel is actually rented, which did not occur here. The appro priate measure of damages was_los_L.profi.ts., due_..to_.the_niimber of hour>'the machine was down. Gilliland v. Baldzvin-Liina-Hamilton~Cor?~ (Michigan) 71Sd Manufacturer Not Reimbursed by Purchaser for Defense of Suit The manufacturer of a paper pulp digester system was_npt_entitled_tc. indemnification fron_tFe_purclia'ser_fo~r_the._costs or.successfully defending an action bv the purchaser's_workman jyho^wasj_aliegedly_inj.ured7in_the e>:ploston ot a ffasTi' tank~Ttirdependently_^lecj:ed_ nnd_installed_by jhe purchaser. Common~Ia\v indemnification was not available because the claims of the worker were not sufficiently disclosed for a determination that, as between the employer and the manufacturer, it was the employer who should have paid if the worker had been successful in his action. The Oregon Supreme Court also held that the employer could not be held liable for negligence in causing the manufacturer's loss bec3US.e_it_wa_s not shown that the employer caused.thejmployce_jo_suej Kamyr, Inc. v. Boise-Cascade Corp. (Oregon) c 7193 Commerce., Clearing, House,.Ivc. CcKiintrct Clearing llcute, Inc. SGP 0007594