Facts:
Louise hauter gave her son Fred Hauter a “Golfing Gizmo” as a Christmas gift. A training device for unskilled golfers, this device is supposed to help the golfers improve their abilities. The instructions “urge players to "drive the ball with full power" and further state: "Completely Safe Ball Will Not Hit Player." (Line 29 - 30) Fred Hauter was severely injured when he was hit in the head by the ball while using this training device. Plaintiff filed a suit “claiming false representation, breach of express and implied warranties and strict liability in tort.” (Line 32 - 33) Fred testified that he had read the instructions and used the device about 12 times before, and the place was free of anything or anyone that may have to cause the ball to hit him. Jury found for defendants in this case, “the trial court granted plaintiff's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict” (Line 5)
Issue:…show more content… Plaintiff has three causes of action. The first being misrepresentation. The second cause being the breach of express and implied warranties. And the third cause is “strict liability in tort based on the defective design of defendants' product.” (Line 9 - 10) “plaintiffs are entitled to recover as a matter of law under each theory” (Line 11) According to a doctor, Fred suffered brain damage and is currently epileptic. A safety engineer concluded that the Gizmo is a “major hazard”, a professional golfer also testifies for plaintiffs. Defendant stated that he bought the rights from a professional golfer in 1962, and the product had been in the market ever since. Plaintiff claims that the Gizmo is defectively designed as a final cause of action based on the doctrine of strict
