Barker v. Lull Engineering Co.
Supreme Court of California
20 Cal.3d 413, 143 Cal.Rptr. 225, 573 P.2d 443 (1978)
- Written by Megan Petersen, JD
Facts
Ray Barker (plaintiff) was employed as an operator of a high-lift loader at a construction site at the University of California at Santa Cruz. The loader was manufactured by Lull Engineering Co. (Lull) (defendant) and leased to Barker’s employer by George M. Philpott Co., Inc. (Philpott) (defendant). At the time he was using the loader, Barker was relatively inexperienced and was using the loader to lift timber in a manner and on terrain for which the machine was not intended. Barker was injured when he lost control of the loader and failed to escape falling timber. He brought suit against the defendants on the ground that the loader was defectively designed. Barker argued that the loader should have been equipped with seat belts and other safety mechanisms. However, at trial, it was shown that such devices, if installed, would actually make the loader unsafe. The accident was largely attributed to Barker’s inexperience. The jury entered judgment for Lull and Philpott after they were instructed by the trial judge that “strict liability for a defect in design of a product is based on a finding that the product was unreasonably dangerous for its intended use.” Barker appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Tobriner, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 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.