Powers v. Taser International, Inc.
Arizona Court of Appeals
174 P.3d 777 (2007)
Samuel Powers (plaintiff) was a deputy sheriff at the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office. Powers participated in a training that was a prerequisite to be certified to carry an M-26 taser manufactured by Taser International, Inc. (Taser) (defendant). The training materials were prepared by Taser. They warned that the taser could cause uncontrollable muscle contractions causing a person to fall. By falling, a person might suffer cuts, bruises, and abrasions. This warning was based on tests that Taser conducted on animals and more than 3,000 people. The sheriff’s office required that each officer undergoing taser training be exposed to the taser’s electrical force. When Powers was exposed to the taser, his back muscles contracted so violently that one of his spinal discs was fractured. While being treated for his fracture, Powers learned that he had severe osteoporosis and must restrict himself to light duty, making serving as a deputy sheriff impossible. Powers resigned from his job. Powers sued Taser, alleging that the M-26 taser was unreasonably dangerous and lacked adequate warning of its danger. Taser argued that prior to Powers’s injury, it did not know the M-26 could cause muscle contractions strong enough to fracture a bone, and was not required to warn users of a danger Taser didn’t know existed. The trial court instructed the jury to consider whether, at the time it sold the M-26, it knew or should have known that the M-26 was unreasonably dangerous unless accompanied by adequate warnings. Powers objected to this instruction, arguing that the jury should impute to Taser knowledge of the M-26’s danger that Taser learned from Powers’s injuries, and a duty to warn users accordingly. The jury found in favor of Taser. Powers appealed.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Barker, J.)
What to do next…
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 724,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
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.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 724,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 45,600 briefs, keyed to 983 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.