Controversial Court Decisions: O'Brien v. Muskin Corp.

This is one in a series of posts designed to describe controversial, notorious, infamous, and outrageous court decisions. For similar posts, click here.

Case: O'Brien v. Muskin Corp., 94 N.J. 169 (1983).

Facts: O'Brien trespassed at the home of the Henrys and dove into their above ground pool (either from the platform by the pool or from the roof of the adjacent eight-foot high garage) made by Muskin Corp. As O'Brien’s hands hit the vinyl lined pool bottom, they slid apart and he sustained injuries when his head hit the bottom. The water in the pool was filled to a depth of three and one-half feet and a warning decal saying "Do Not Dive" appeared beneath the manufacturer’s logo in letters approximately one-half inch high. O'Brien sued the manufacturer of the pool on the grounds that it was liable for having failed to warn him of the risks of diving into the pool, and that the pool was defectively designed because its bottom had been lined with vinyl.

Trial Court: The trial court determined that O'Brien had failed to prove a design defect in the pool. The jury determined that the pool was defective, but that O'Brien was a trespasser at the time of the accident, thus exculpating the Henrys. Finally, the jury found that O'Brien was guilty of contributory negligence (85% to O'Brien and 15% to Muskin). Thus, under New Jersey's comparative negligence statute, O'Brien was barred from recovery.

Appellate Court: After the Appellate Division ordered a new trial, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that held that even though O'Brien could not show that the vinyl lined pool bottom could be designed more safely, he could still prevail if he could convince a jury that the "risk posed by the pool outweighed its utility."  The Court used a multi-factor risk-utility analysis test, which included examining "[t]he feasibility, on the part of the manufacturer, of spreading the loss by setting the price of the product or carrying liability insurance."As a result, the Supreme Court affirmed the Appellate Division's order of a new trial. 

Why It's Controversial: Muskin Corp. was held strictly liable for O'Brien's injuries even though he trespassed onto the Henry's property and dove into a shallow pool despite the posted warning.

Controversial Court Decisions: Bigbee v. Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co.

This is one in a series of posts designed to describe controversial, notorious, infamous, and outrageous court decisions. For similar posts, click here.

Case: Bigbee v. Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co., 34 Cal.3d 49 (1983).

Facts: Bigbee was was injured when an allgedly intoxicated driver lost control of her car, veered off the street into a parking lot, and crashed into a telephone booth in which the man was standing. The phone booth was about 15 feet from the road, and the door was allegedly "sticky."  Bigbee sued the driver and the companies that served her alcohol. In addition (and this is what this case is about), he also sued the companies responsible for the design, location, installation, and maintenance of the telephone booth. 

Appellate Court: The California Supreme Court ruled that the risk someone might veer off the road and crash into the telephone booth was not unforeseeable as a matter of law. The Court also determined that it was of no consequence that the harm to the plaintiff came about through the negligent or reckless acts of an allegedly intoxicated driver. The Court concluded that "there are no policy considerations which weigh against imposition of liability" against the defendants, and referred specifically to "the probable availability of insurance tor these types of accidents." After the case was remanded, the defendants settled with Bigbee for an undisclosed amount.

Why It's Controversial: The Court's decision that the companies responsible for the design, installation and maintenance of the telephone booth could be held liable endorsed a wide-ranging definition of forseeability: A jury need not find that the defendants could forsee an intoxicated driver crashing into a phone booth located on that particular street, but rather whether a jury could foresee any driver crashing into a man standing in any phone booth similarly situated (the dissent notes that public telephones have long been maintained adjacent to roads for the convenience of the public, despite obvious but remote risks). This broad definition of forseeability is a license for a considerable expansion of liability. For more background and a different perspective on the Bigbee case, see here.

Controversial Court Decisions: Walt Disney World v. Wood

This is one in a series of posts designed to describe controversial, notorious, infamous, and outrageous court decisions. For similar posts, click here.

Case: Walt Disney World v. Wood, 515 So. 2d 198 (Fla. 1987).

Facts: Aloysia Wood was injured in November 1971 at the grand prix attraction at Walt Disney World (Disney), when her fiance (and later husband) Daniel Wood, rammed from the rear the vehicle which she was driving. Aloysia Wood filed suit against Disney, and Disney sought contribution from Daniel Wood. Disney's contribution claim alleged that Daniel, who was not a party in the original suit, was at least partially liable for the injuries to Aloysia.

Trial Court: The jury returned a verdict finding Aloysia Wood 14% at fault, Daniel Wood 85% at fault, and Disney 1% at fault (for more information about apportioning fault via comparative negligence, see here). The jury assessed Wood's damages at $75,000. Because Daniel Wood was judgment proof (basically, financially insolvent), and because of the concept of joint and several liability, the court entered judgment against Disney for 86% of the damages.

Appellate Courts: The Fourth District Court of Appeal and the Florida Supreme Court affirmed the judgment.

Why It's Controversial: Despite a finding from the jury that the Woods were a combined  99% at fault (Aloysia 14% and Daniel 85%), Aloysia Wood received 86% of the damages: Disney's liability (1%), and Daniel's liability (85%, also paid by Disney). Because Disney was partially responsible (if only 1%), joint and several liability provided that Aloysia Wood could recover the entire amount of damages ($75,000), minus her liability (14%, or $10,500), from Disney. The Woods enriched themselves on their own negligence. Approximately 15 states follow the rule that defendants are joint and severally liable, even under a comparative negligence regime.