Dudley Sports Co. v. Schmitt
Indiana Court of Appeals
279 N.E.2d 266 (1972)
- Written by Tammy Boggs, JD
Facts
Danville High School purchased an automatic baseball-pitching machine from Dudley Sports Company (Dudley) (plaintiff). The machine was manufactured by another company but marketed by Dudley and bore a tag reading “Dudley Automatic Pitching Machine Dudley Sports Company, Inc.” At the high school, a school administrator and coach uncrated and assembled the machine. The delivery crate contained assembly instructions and a general warning tag referring to operating instructions, but the crate did not include any operating instructions. The assembled machine was placed in a storage room, unplugged. Unknown to student Joseph Schmitt (defendant), the pitching machine had a metal throwing arm, which, if in the “ten o’clock” position, could activate even if the machine was unplugged. The arm could activate with any slight vibration or change in atmospheric conditions. Schmitt entered the storage room to sweep, and the throwing arm activated, severely injuring Schmitt. Schmitt sued Dudley, alleging negligence in design and manufacturing. A jury found in favor of Schmitt, and the trial court entered judgment accordingly. Dudley appealed, arguing that it did not manufacture the product.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Buchanan, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.
