Plaintiff received a Shopsmith, a multiuse power tool manufactured by Yuba and demonstrated and sold through a retailer, after reviewing the manufacturer’s brochure. Two years later, while using it as a lathe with attachments he had purchased, a piece of wood flew out and struck him in the forehead, causing serious injury. Plaintiff presented evidence that the machine was defectively designed and constructed, particularly that inadequate set screws allowed vibration to loosen the tailstock. He sued the retailer and manufacturer for negligence and breach of warranty, and the jury returned a verdict against the manufacturer for $65,000.
Is a manufacturer liable to an injured consumer, without proof of privity or timely notice of breach under the sales statute, when it places on the market a product to be used without inspection that has a defect causing personal injury?
A manufacturer is strictly liable in tort when it places an article on the market, knowing it is to be used without inspection for defects, and the article proves to have a defect that causes injury to a person. The buyer’s notice requirement in Civil Code section 1769 applies to parties to a sales contract and does not bar an injured consumer’s claim against a remote manufacturer.
Yes. The manufacturer was liable because substantial evidence supported that the Shopsmith had a defect in design and construction that caused plaintiff’s injuries, and plaintiff did not need to rely on contract warranty doctrines or satisfy statutory notice requirements to recover.
Justice Traynor explained that section 1769’s notice requirement governs contractual sales warranties between buyer and seller, not obligations imposed on a remote manufacturer by common law. The court concluded that requiring notice in personal injury suits against manufacturers would be an unfair trap for consumers who had no direct dealings with the manufacturer. It then held that recovery need not rest on express warranty at all, because public policy requires that the costs of injuries from defective products be borne by manufacturers that market them rather than by injured persons powerless to protect themselves. Since the evidence showed the Shopsmith was defectively designed and built and caused the injury while being used as intended, the judgment against the manufacturer was proper.
Greenman is the foundational California case establishing modern strict products liability in tort, independent of negligence and warranty formalities such as privity and notice. It strongly influenced Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A and later California doctrine, including Escola v. Coca Cola Bottling Co. of Fresno, 24 Cal. 2d 453 (1944) (Traynor, J., concurring), Vandermark v. Ford Motor Co., 61 Cal. 2d 256 (1964), and Cronin v. J.B.E. Olson Corp., 8 Cal. 3d 121 (1972).
Enter a case name or citation — get a structured brief where every case it cites is checked against real law.
Try Law Student Workbench →