Richetta v. Stanley Fastening Systems, L.P.

661 F.Supp.2d 500 (2009)

Study Aids
Case Briefs Overview
Casebooks
Case Briefs
R
From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Richetta v. Stanley Fastening Systems, L.P.

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
661 F.Supp.2d 500 (2009)

  • Written by Rose VanHofwegen, JD

Facts

Construction worker Bruce Richetta set his pneumatic nail gun on top of a six-foot ladder and left the worksite to get more tools without disconnecting the air compressor. The nail gun fell off the ladder when Richetta returned and hit him, discharging a nail into his chest. Richetta and his wife Melissa (together, plaintiffs) brought a product-liability lawsuit against manufacturer Stanley Fastening Systems, L.P. (defendant), claiming the gun was defectively designed because it did not have a safety switch or trigger lock. Although the nail gun fired only if the user simultaneously pulled the trigger and touched the contact-trip to a surface, the Richettas claimed something must have hit the trigger as the nail gun fell. Stanley moved for summary judgment as to strict product liability on three grounds. First, Stanley argued that state law extended strict liability only to intended users of a product, and that Richetta was not using the gun as intended. Second, Stanley’s expert opined that the instructions and warnings advising users to disconnect the gun from the compressor when not in use rendered its design reasonably safe. Third, Stanley argued that Richetta’s failure to disconnect the compressor, not the design of the nail gun, caused his injury.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Golden, 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 810,000 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

  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.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership

Casebooks

Torts

Key Terms

Related Videos