Garcia v. Halsett - 3 Cal. App. 3d 319, 82 Cal. Rptr. 420 (1970)

Rule:

Strict liability applies to the manufacturer of chattels which cause personal injury. This liability is extended to retailers and distributors of chattels. Strict liability is also imposed upon the lessor of a chattel. The rule imposing strict liability in tort for products causing injury extends its protection to the injured party without reference to the role he played, or even if he played none, in the transaction wherein the defective chattel was acquired from its purveyor. He can be a retail buyer, a member of the buyer's family, the buyer's or a mere bystander totally unconnected with the chattel's purveyor except as an ultimate victim. 

Facts:

In 1962, appellant Arthur Garcia, an 11-year-old boy, was injured in a launderette owned by defendant Rodney E. Halsett, who had nothing to do with the design of the launderette or with the installation of the equipment. The injury occurred when the appellant inserted his arm in a washing machine, after it had stopped, to remove clothing he had been washing. The machine, with the door open, started to spin fast and twisted the appellant’s arm. Appellant then brought a personal injury action against defendant on theories of strict liability and bailment. In this action, despite evidence that the machine lacked an inexpensive safety device that would have prevented its spinning while the door was open, the trial court refused an instruction on strict liability and a judgment was entered in favor of defendant. 

Issue:

Should the trial court’s refusal to an instruction on strict liability in this case be reversed?

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

On appeal, the court reversed the judgment and held that although appellant was a licensee rather than a bailee because he assumed no responsibility for the safe-keeping or repair of the washing machine, appellant was still entitled to an instruction and jury finding of strict liability in tort. The court further held that appellant was actually in a worse position than a retail buyer or member of the buyer's family, who arguably had an opportunity to inspect a product before buying and using it. That although defendant was not engaged in the distribution of the product, like in the same manner as a manufacturer, retailer or lessor, defendant did provide the product to the public for use by the public. The court also concluded that expert testimony established that the washing machine was defective.