Smith v. Ingersoll-Rand Co.
Alaska Supreme Court
14 P.3d 990 (2000)
- Written by Craig Conway, LLM
Facts
Dan Smith (plaintiff), a light duty mechanic, filed a strict products liability suit in federal district court after a door on an air compressor manufactured by Ingersoll-Rand Company (Ingersoll-Rand) (defendant) fell on his head and caused him to suffer serious injuries. At the time of the incident, Smith, who was not wearing his hard hat, propped open the compressor door in order to start the engine. There was no latch on the compressor door to hold it open. Whether from wind, vibration, or improper placement the door fell from its open position and hit Smith’s head. Smith did not immediately suffer serious injuries. However, eleven days after the incident he began to experience seizures and was later diagnosed with traumatic epilepsy. Since the accident, Smith consistently suffered from repeated seizures, fatigue, difficulty concentrating, lapses in memory, and other related medical problems. Following three jury trials and a remand from the Ninth Circuit, the United States District Court for the District of Alaska certified a question to the Alaska Supreme Court, namely “[D]id the 1986 Tort Reform Act change the existing law on comparative fault in products liability cases such that a plaintiff’s failure to exercise ordinary care is now sufficient to raise a jury question on comparative fault?”
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Matthews, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 802,000 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.
