For Your Data Peterson V. Superior Courtroom Of Riverside County Illustration Brief
September 01, 2019
Edit
Peterson v. Superior Court of Riverside County case brief summary
10 Cal. quaternary 1185 (1995)
CASE FACTS
Plaintiff hotel invitee filed an activity for negligence as well as strict production liability against accused hotel possessor for injuries sustained when she slipped inwards the hotel bathtub.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The trial courtroom granted defendant's motion inwards limine to foreclose plaintiff from introducing testify of strict liability, belongings that accused could non live strictly liable every bit a thing of law. The courtroom of appeals issued an visit belongings that a peremptory writ of mandate should consequence directing the trial courtroom to allow plaintiff to maintain on her strict liability theory lastly that Becker v. IRM Corp., 38 Cal. 3d 454 (1985) applied to hotel proprietors. Defendants sought review as well as the courtroom reversed the courtroom of appeals judgment.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
The courtroom reversed the courtroom of appeals judgment, belongings that plaintiff hotel invitee could non maintain against accused hotel possessor on a strict products liability theory for injuries sustained spell using a hotel bathtub because neither landlords nor hotel proprietors were strictly liable on a products liability theory for injuries to tenants and/or guests caused past times a defect inwards the premises.
Suggested police schoolhouse written report materials
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials
.
10 Cal. quaternary 1185 (1995)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Defendant hotel possessor appealed an fellowship of the Superior Court of Riverside County (California), which reversed the trial court's fellowship granting defendant's motion inwards limine as well as which permitted plaintiff hotel invitee to innovate testify of strict products liability inwards her activity against accused for injuries sustained spell using a bathtub inwards defendant's hotel.CASE FACTS
Plaintiff hotel invitee filed an activity for negligence as well as strict production liability against accused hotel possessor for injuries sustained when she slipped inwards the hotel bathtub.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The trial courtroom granted defendant's motion inwards limine to foreclose plaintiff from introducing testify of strict liability, belongings that accused could non live strictly liable every bit a thing of law. The courtroom of appeals issued an visit belongings that a peremptory writ of mandate should consequence directing the trial courtroom to allow plaintiff to maintain on her strict liability theory lastly that Becker v. IRM Corp., 38 Cal. 3d 454 (1985) applied to hotel proprietors. Defendants sought review as well as the courtroom reversed the courtroom of appeals judgment.
DISCUSSION
- The courtroom overruled that component subdivision of its conclusion inwards Becker imposing strict products liability, as well as held that neither landlords nor hotel proprietors were strictly liable on a products liability theory for injuries to tenants and/or guests caused past times a defect inwards the premises.
- The courtroom held that it erred inwards applying the doctrine of strict products liability to a residential landlord that was non business office of the manufacturing or marketing corporation of an allegedly defective product.
CONCLUSION
The courtroom reversed the courtroom of appeals judgment, belongings that plaintiff hotel invitee could non maintain against accused hotel possessor on a strict products liability theory for injuries sustained spell using a hotel bathtub because neither landlords nor hotel proprietors were strictly liable on a products liability theory for injuries to tenants and/or guests caused past times a defect inwards the premises.
Suggested police schoolhouse written report materials
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials
.