From our private database of 15,100+ case briefs...

Potter v. Chicago Pneumatic Tool Co.

Connecticut Supreme Court
694 A.2d 1319 (1997)


Several workers were injured from long-term use of pneumatic hand tools manufactured by Chicago Pneumatic Tool Company (Chicago Pneumatic) and Stanley Works and Dresser Industries, Inc. (Dresser). The workers (plaintiffs) brought a products liability action against Chicago Pneumatic and Dresser (defendants), arguing that the tools were defectively designed. The jury rendered a verdict and the trial court issued a judgment in favor of the workers, finding that the tools were defectively designed so as to make them unreasonably dangerous. The manufacturers appealed, arguing that the workers failed to prove that there was a reasonable alternative design for the tools.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Katz, J.)

Concurrence (Berdon, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 288,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 15,100 briefs, keyed to 205 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.