[Torts] 8. Murray v. Fairbanks Morse (1979)

Murray v. Fairbanks Morse --- 610 F.2d 149 (3d Cir. 1979) FactThe Plaintiff(P) was injured while assembling an electrical control panel on a platform more than ten feet above a concrete floor. The defendant(D) had not been informed about P's working site and built the panel with two iron cross-members, which were temporarily welded, and not secured permanently. Murray worked in dangerous condition and fell to the concrete floor when the temporarily welded cross-member gave way. Because of the spinal nerve damage from the accident, Murray is incontinent and sexually dysfunctional. Murray sued D under strict liability and D asserted P's assumption of risk as a defense. The verdict entered for P to $2,000,000 but with five percent fault attributable to Murray, it reduced to $1,747,000. D appealed. IssueWhether a comparative fault principle applies in a strict liability action when P’s own culpable conduct contributes to the injury. Rule-HoldingA plaintiff’s culpable conduct, in a strict liability action, may be considered and reduce the P’s recovery when that conduct has causally contributed to the injury. -supporting authorityPan-Alaska Fisheries, Inc. v. Marine Construction & Design Co., 565 F.2d 1129, 1139 (9th Cir. 1977). ApplicationHere, D’s product was defective because the cross-member was only temporarily welded. At the same time, P also contributed to the accident because he knowingly performed his job in a dangerous condition. In a strict liability action, D's negligence is not a required element of liability, and the product defect of D is not comparable to P’s faulty conduct. However, the court may consider responsibility based on the casual contribution of both the product defect and P's fault in allocating the loss. Therefore, it is appropriate to consider Murray’s conduct in allocating the damage and reduce his recovery. ConclusionAffirmed.  <동영상 리뷰> -가장 어려웠던 질문Q: 판례에서 로마숫자는 무엇을 나누는 것인가?내 답변: 결론을 내리기까지 필요한 여러가지 큰 검토사항들. 각 항목은 팩트를 정리하거나, 하나 혹은 여러 개의 이슈를 다룰 수도 있고, 사회적 역사적 정책적 배경을 다룰 수도 있다. 한 단계씩 establish 해 나가면서 법의 논리를 쌓아 올린다.다른 학생 답변: 1,2,3 - 이슈들, 4,5 - comparative N vs strict L, 6,7,8 - whether the application is okayA: 이슈를 나눠서 독자로 하여금 clear logical reasoning을 돕는다.  -내가 잘못 생각한 질문Q: D가 appeal한 근거는 뭐였는가?내 답변: assumption of risk.A: contributory negligence가 strict liability에 적용되지 못하기 때문에 P는 소송을 할 수 없음을 주장하며 appeal 했다. -코아벨스 질문내 질문: 영상에서 P와 D가 둘 다 contributory negligence가 strict liability에 적용되면 안 된다고 주장했다고 하셨는데, P의 경우에는 5%의 책임도 지고 싶지 않기 때문에 일리가 있지만, D의 경우에는 그렇게 주장하는 이유가 무엇인가요?A: Assumption of risk로 completely bar recovery를 주장하려고. -정리Strict liability의 의미는,“P가 어떻게 행동했든 무조건 100% damages를 받는다.” 가 아니라“D가 negligence하지 않았더라도 product defect 때문에 liability를 질 수 있다.” 이다 pure contributory negligence: 원고의 잘못 1%라도 있으면 원고 책임modified comparative negligence: 원고가 51% 이상의 잘못이 있으면 recovery barredcomparative negligence: 과실의 비율대로 책임짐 *브리프 작성이나 시험 답안에서 because를 많이 쓸수록 높은 점수를 받는다.