Colin Krempec, Mr. Sid Shafer, Management Fundamentals, 20 May 2024.
Blevins v. Cushman Motors in product liability case, Golf. Something you are able to do, no matter how old you become. Whether you're 15 or 75, you will still enjoy it. As well as golfing with your buddies. Something that everyone enjoys, no matter what occurs during the round. Unfortunately, that was not the case. On the afternoon of July 15, 1969. Plaintiff Albert L. Blevins, and his occasional golfing partner and former co-worker, Kermit Maxwell, met to play golf at Stayton Meadows Golf Course. After splitting between them the rental cost of a three-wheeled golf cart manufactured by Cushman, the two men completed the first nine holes of an intended eighteen holes of golf.…show more content… In this case, Cushman’s contention cannot be sustained. Cushman challenges the admission of the testimony of plaintiffs expert witnesses concerning tests made by him and opinions. Cushman objects that one type of test made by that expert was not under substantially similar conditions to those which existed at the time and place of the accident in question, thereby depriving the test of a proper foundation. Cushman argued that “when the cart tipped and came down on Blevins, he was in distress as he lay under the cart with his feet mashed back over his head; he was unable to breathe; he could inhale but he could not exhale.” He was diagnosed with a pneumothorax of the left lung and his life was despaired of for several days during which he was kept under intensive care in the hospital. He also received a twisting injury to the spine which resulted in compression fractures of the 11th and 12th dorsal vertebrae and the first lumbar vertebrae and a dislocation of the cost over real joints, he sustained a fracture to the sternum which healed with a prominence or palpable ridge. Four of the fractured vertebrae fused together, and Blevins argued that an intentional tort claim for assault and battery should be recognized in the context…show more content… Blevins testified that he could no longer play with his children or go on overnight Boy Scout trips with his son. He formerly did lawn and yard work and tied tomato vines, but can no longer do so. If he leans over at an angle for more than a minute or two, his back gets a numb sensation. He can no longer help his wife with housework. He has difficulty sleeping. He cannot put on his shoes without a long shoe horn and cannot cut his toenails. He cannot attend church regularly because the wooden pews are uncomfortable to the dorsal prominence in his back. His work requires considerable driving but this causes him distress and discomfort and sometimes he has to stop short on a trip and check into a motel. Although he is still able to play 4 or 5 rounds of golf a season, he has been unable to accomplish the activities since the accident. CONCLUSION Finally, Cushman urges that the trial court erred in not granting a new trial because of the cumulative effect of the matters heretofore discussed. Each of the other ten specific assignments of error have already been individually considered and ruled adversely by Cushman. Those assignments have no greater
