59 Cal.2d 57, 27 Cal. Rptr. 697, 377 P.2d 897 (1963)
Plaintiff purchased a Shopsmith, a combination power tool that could be used as a saw, drill, and wood lathe, after seeing it demonstrated by the retailer and studying a brochure prepared by the manufacturer Yuba Power Products, Inc.1
His wife bought the tool and gave it to him for Christmas in 1955.2 In 1957 he acquired the attachments needed to use the Shopsmith as a lathe and began turning a large piece of wood he intended to make into a chalice.3
After working on the wood several times without incident, the piece suddenly flew out of the machine and struck plaintiff on the forehead, inflicting serious injuries.4 About ten and a half months later he gave written notice of claimed breaches of warranties to both the retailer and the manufacturer and filed a complaint alleging breaches of warranties and negligence against them.5
Following a jury trial the court ruled there was no evidence the retailer had been negligent or breached any express warranty and that the manufacturer was not liable for breach of any implied warranty.6 It therefore submitted only the implied-warranty claim against the retailer and the negligence and express-warranty claims against the manufacturer.7 The jury returned a verdict for the retailer against plaintiff and for plaintiff against the manufacturer in the amount of $65,000.8 The trial court denied the manufacturer's motion for a new trial and entered judgment on the verdict.9 Both the manufacturer and plaintiff appealed, the latter seeking reversal of the judgment for the retailer only if the judgment against the manufacturer was reversed.10
Plaintiff introduced expert testimony that inadequate set screws had been used to hold parts of the machine together, so that normal vibration caused the tailstock of the lathe to move away from the wood being turned, and that other more positive fastening methods would have prevented the accident.11 The jury could reasonably have concluded from this evidence that the manufacturer negligently constructed the Shopsmith and that statements in the manufacturer's brochure constituted express warranties whose breach caused plaintiff's injuries.12
Whether the notice requirement of Civil Code section 1769 applies to a consumer's warranty claim against a manufacturer with whom the consumer has not dealt directly?13
No. Plaintiff's wife purchased the Shopsmith from the retailer with no direct dealings between plaintiff and manufacturer Yuba Power Products, Inc.16
The notice requirement is not appropriate for adoption in actions by injured consumers against manufacturers with whom they have not dealt because it serves as a booby-trap for the unwary.
The notice requirement of Civil Code section 1769 does not apply and does not bar plaintiff's cause of action against the manufacturer.17
Whether a plaintiff must prove an express warranty as defined in Civil Code section 1732 to recover against a manufacturer for injuries caused by a defective product?18
A manufacturer is strictly liable in tort when an article he places on the market, knowing that it is to be used without inspection for defects, proves to have a defect that causes injury to a human being.19 This liability is governed by the law of strict liability in tort rather than by the law of contract warranties.20
No. Plaintiff proved that he was injured while using the Shopsmith in a way it was intended to be used.21
This occurred as a result of a defect in design and manufacture of which he was not aware.22
The defect made the Shopsmith unsafe for its intended use.23
The established facts include expert testimony that inadequate set screws were used to hold parts together so that normal vibration caused the tailstock to move away from the wood being turned.24
It was sufficient that plaintiff proved the injury from the defect without establishing an express warranty under section 1732.25
A plaintiff need not prove an express warranty as defined in Civil Code section 1732 to recover against the manufacturer for injuries caused by a defective product.26
Whether the trial court erred in refusing to give three jury instructions requested by the manufacturer?27
A trial court does not err in refusing requested instructions when the substance of the instructions is adequately covered by those given or when the instruction is not supported by the evidence.28
No. The record shows that the substance of two of the requested instructions was adequately covered by the instructions given and that the third instruction was not supported by the evidence.29
The established facts indicate that the jury could reasonably have concluded from the expert testimony that the manufacturer negligently constructed the Shopsmith and that statements in the brochure constituted express warranties whose breach caused plaintiff's injuries.30
The trial court did not err in refusing to give the three jury instructions requested by the manufacturer.31