The applicable rule of law for this case will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P is a maintenance mechanic who serviced Westwood Manufacturing Company's (Westwood) machinery. P discovered a new saw at the Westwood work site, which he had never seen before, and with which he was unfamiliar. It is called a Belsaw, and is sold by D. The saw blade is encased in a cabinet, with a work area on top where the wood is cut. The blade is not visible when the cabinet door is closed. P looked for the on/off switch to determine whether the saw was turned off, but because the area was dark and because the switch was not located in any of the customary positions, P could not find the switch. P placed his hand on the top of the cabinet, but could not feel a vibration from the saw, nor could he hear any sound emanating from the cabinet. The saw was operating. P opened the cabinet door and squatted on the floor to get a closer look at the inside. Using a flashlight, he looked inside the cabinet. While he was looking, he slipped on sawdust, causing his right hand to go inside the cabinet and into the moving saw blade. This resulted in the partial amputation of P's right hand. Buckner-Weatherby Company, Inc. sold the saw to D, who then sold it to Westwood. P sued Ds under strict products liability. Ds raised the affirmative defense of comparative fault, claiming that P knowingly encountering the risk that the saw blade might be turning by not locating the on/off switch; that P knew it was running when he heard or should have been able to hear the sound of the saw blade; when P opened the cabinet the noise from the blade was louder than when the door was closed, thereby indicating that the machine was running and the blade was turning; P negligently set his feet in sawdust in an area in which the floor was obviously covered with sawdust which he could slip on; and P knowingly encountered the risk of when he failed to ask any Westwood employee for a manual or for instructions as to how to turn the Belsaw off before he began his inspection. P requested the following jury instruction: contributory negligence of the plaintiff is not a defense when such negligence consists merely in a failure to discover the defect in the product, or to guard against the possibility of its existence. The trial court refused and instructed the jury on comparative fault. The jury returned a verdict finding P to be 50.5 percent and Ds' to be 49.5 percent at fault. Because P's fault exceeded that of Ds, the trial court entered a judgment in favor of Ds. The Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court's refusal to give P's requested jury instruction constituted reversible error. D appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.