Acme Corporation’s Appeal

William Timmons, 33 was a machine operator employed by Raytheon Company. He was injured on his left eye when a ’tap’ penetrated his eye. He notices the machine known as XGX 755 cutting tool (Tap) had become dull and needed replacement. He removed tool holder from the tap so as to replace the tap. He secured the tool holder in a bench vise designed for that purpose. In a process of loosening the nut, the tap ejected upward and penetrated his left eye causing permanent blindness on one eye. He sued Acme, the manufacturer of both XGX 755 and the bench vise assembly to hold a tool-holder with the tap. He was awarded compensatory and punitive damages by the jury. Acme was aggrieved and filed the instant appeal.

Negligence

Timmons was in the line of duty when the accident occurred causing injury to his eyes. The fact that there was a notice requiring the user of the machine to wear protective gear when using it does not absolve the crime of Acme. In the matter of Palsgraf[1]

the court held that before negligence can be predicated of a given act, back of the act must be sought and found a duty to individual complaints. The idea of duty and negligent are strictly correlative. The court went further to point out that it was not necessary that the defendant should have noticed of the particular way that the accident would occur if the possibility of the accident was clear to ordinary man. In this instant case, a prudent man would not think an accident would occur due to the design of the machine and the vise manufactured by the company. Negligent of the company has therefore resulted in bodily harm. It was held in the case of Weirum[2] that determination of duty of care is primarily a question of law and foreseeability is a question of fact, therefore liability is imposed only if the risk of harm resulting from the act is deemed unreasonable. It has been demonstrated that the injury from the ’tap’ was unreasonable and unforeseeable

Strict Liability

When Timmons secured the tool-holder in a bench vise designed for that purpose, he believed that it holds securely hold the machine and allow for a repair. Acme is strictly liable for the accident caused to Timmons because he used the vice and the tool in an intended manner. The court in the matter of Wilson Sporting Goods Co[3] held that proof that a product was designed defectively under consumer -expectation test does not appear to require proof. It further stated that the plaintiff should only show that he used the product in an intended foreseeable fashion but it failed to meet its expectation. If the machine and the bolt were not defective, Timmons would not have been injured, this is because they did not meet the expectations of an average consumer. When the manufacturer manufactures a product, they put it on the market to be used by the customers without inspection. The manufacturer has a duty to ensure that the finished product they release to the market is of high quality. In the case of Macpherson[4], the court held that the obligation to inspect must vary with the nature of the things to be inspected. The fact that both the machine and the vase was made from the same manufacturer increased the belief that the product is of high quality and does not pose any danger, therefore not warranting inspection.

Punitive Damages

The punitive damages awarded by the Jury is appropriate because the Acme was negligent and did not consider the interest of its consumers. Therefore, to safeguard the lay citizens who are the consumers, it is appropriate to award the punitive damage to ensure the company is careful in all its endeavors. The court in the case of Grimshaw[5]

said affirmed that punitive damages are the most effective remedy to consumer protections against defectively designed mass-produced articles. This is would recoup the expenses incurred by Timmon which are considerable.

The courts have laid down the principles that should be met in determining whether a person is negligent or not. There must be a legal duty of care owed by the plaintiff, the duty is breached and as result, the plaintiff suffers damage. It has been established that Acme owes its customers a legal duty of care, including Timmons. It’s warning on wearing protective clothing was not adequate thereby resulting in an injury. In the case of Jane Costa[6],

the court held that where a danger was would be obvious to the person of ordinary perception and judgment, then the landlord may reasonably presume a visitor has no knowledge and therefore no need to warn. In the instant case, the danger of the XGX755 machine or its vise or other appliances causing injury was not foreseeable. Therefore, it would be in best interest of justice to award punitive damage for selling defective products.

Bibliography

Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co., 248 N.Y. 339, 162 N.E. 99 (1928)

Weirum v RKO General, Inc., 539 p.2d 36 (Cal. 1975)

Wilson Sporting Goods v Hickox 59 A.3d 1267 (D.C. 2013)

MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co., 217 N.Y. 382, 111 N.E. 1050 (1916)

Grimshaw v Ford Motor Co., 119 Cal.App.3d 757 (1981)

Jane Costa V. Boston Red Sox Baseball Club. 61 Mass.App.Ct. 299 (2004).

[1] Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co., 248 N.Y. 339, 162 N.E. 99 (1928)

[2] Weirum v RKO General, Inc., 539 p.2d 36 (Cal. 1975)

[3] Wilson Sporting Goods v Hickox 59 A.3d 1267 (D.C. 2013)

[4] MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co., 217 N.Y. 382, 111 N.E. 1050 (1916)

[5] Grimshaw v Ford Motor Co., 119 Cal.App.3d 757 (1981)

[6] Jane Costa V. Boston Red Sox Baseball Club. 61 Mass.App.Ct. 299 (2004).