Hughes v. Magic Chef, Inc.
Iowa Supreme Court
288 N.W.2d 542 (1980)
- Written by Jamie Milne, JD
Facts
Vincent and Eileen Hughes (plaintiffs) owned a stove manufactured by Magic Chef, Inc. (defendant). After a third party refilled the stove’s propane tank, two pilot lights on top of the stove were relit, but a third pilot light inside the oven was not, causing a buildup of propane in the stove. Two days later, when Vincent used the stove, it exploded in his mobile home. Vincent incurred severe burns. The Hugheses filed a strict-products-liability suit against Magic Chef, arguing that the stove was unreasonably dangerous. Magic Chef asserted misuse of product and assumption of risk as affirmative defenses. As to misuse of product, the trial judge instructed the jury that the defense’s applicability turned on whether Vincent knew or reasonably should have known of the third pilot light and the fact that it was unlit. If so, and he did nothing to correct the situation before using the stove, then Vincent’s conduct negated Magic Chef’s liability. The jury held in Magic Chef’s favor, and the trial court denied the Hugheses’ motion for a new trial. The Hugheses appealed to the Iowa Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Uhlenhopp, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 821,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 989 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.
