Hood v. Ryobi America Corp.
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
181 F.3d 608 (1999)
- Written by Megan Petersen, JD
Facts
Hood (plaintiff) purchased and used a saw manufactured by Ryobi America Corp. (Ryobi) (defendant). Despite at least seven clear, simple warnings not to do so in the manufacturer’s manual, Hood removed the blade guards from the saw and used it for home carpentry. The warnings stated that using the blade guards was necessary to avoid “severe injury” and “possible serious personal injury.” Hood lost part of his thumb and lacerated his leg due to an accident caused by using the saw without blade guards. The saw blade detached from the saw and struck Hood. Hood brought suit against Ryobi, alleging that the company failed to comply with its duty to warn because the warnings about using blade guards did not explain the consequences potentially resulting from failure to use the guards. Hood stated that he was unaware of dangers from the saw blade detaching from the saw, but that Ryobi was aware of this danger because it had previously happened to other users. Additionally, Hood alleged that Ryobi was negligent and that the saw was defective. The trial court granted summary judgment for Ryobi, and Hood appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Wilkinson, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,000 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.


