Anderson v. Dreis & Krump Manufacturing Corp.

48 Wash. App. 432, 739 P.2d 1177 (1987)

Study Aids
Case Briefs Overview
Casebooks
Case Briefs
A
From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Anderson v. Dreis & Krump Manufacturing Corp.

Court of Appeals of Washington
48 Wash. App. 432, 739 P.2d 1177 (1987)

SC

Facts

Comet Corporation (Comet) purchased a press manufactured by Dreis & Krump Manufacturing Corporation (Dreis) (defendant). The press was used for a variety of different purposes. The press was designed with two activation methods. The first was a two-button system that required the user to use both hands to operate the press. Because the system required two hands for activation, this method had an inherent safety feature, as a user could not run the press and put a hand in the point of operation at the same time. The second method of activation was a foot lever. This method had no similar safety feature. Comet modified the two-button system on its press so that the press could be operated using one button and only one hand. Steve Anderson (plaintiff), an employee of Comet, was using the press’s modified one-button activation system when he reached into the point of operation to remove debris. Anderson severely injured his hand. Anderson brought a design-defect suit against Dreis, claiming that Dreis should have placed safety guards at the point of operation. Dreis argued that Comet’s modification of the activation system was a superseding cause that shielded Dreis from liability. The trial court agreed and awarded summary judgment to Dreis. Anderson appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Munson, J.)

Dissent (Green, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 804,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 804,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 804,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership

Casebooks

Products Liability

Key Terms

Related Videos