From our private database of 35,400+ case briefs...
Fassett v. Sears Holdings Corp.
United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
319 F.R.D. 143 (2017)
Facts
Daniel Fassett (plaintiff) heard sputtering sounds coming from his lawnmower. When Fassett attempted to relieve pressure in the mower’s fuel tank by loosening the cap, gasoline sprayed from the machine onto his body, igniting in flames. Fassett sustained serious injuries. Fassett then brought a products-liability suit against Sears Holding Corp. (defendant), the manufacturer of the lawnmower. During the course of litigation, Fassett and Sears argued over the extent to which material about alternative fuel-cap designs and distinct lawnmower layouts could be discoverable. Sears argued that the only type of gas-cap design Fassett could discover information about was the design used on Fassett’s lawnmower. An expert witness testified that other cap designs could have been functional It was also found that the alternative caps could be easily interchangeable with the injury-causing cap. Additionally, it was found that that the alternative cap designs could be safety tested using the same procedures as were used for the injury-causing cap. The issue was brought before federal court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Brann, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 617,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 35,400 briefs, keyed to 984 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.