Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Case Notes

By ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |
May 01, 2004

Manufacturer, Seller of Component Part Not Liable for Injury

A manufacturer and seller of a component part may not be liable under the Washington Product Liability Act where neither was responsible for the part's modification or use in the design or assembly of a piece of machinery that caused injury. Sepulveda-Esquivel v. Central Machine Works, Inc., No. 29123-1-II, Court of Appeals of Washington, Division Two, Jan. 13, 2004.

Taurino Sepulveda-Esquivel suffered serious injuries during his employment at Vanalco when a piece of machinery fell on him. More specifically, a “bridge” secured to a crane by a hook fell when the crane operator lifted the bridge from a “pot.” A pot is a large machine used in the smelting of aluminum, approximately 10 feet tall, 18 feet long and 3 feet wide. A “bail,” which is a metal bar that looks like an inverted “V,” is welded to the top of the bridge. A metal latch called a “mouse” was designed by Vanalco's predecessor to go over the hook's mouth after the bail is in the hook. During the smelting of aluminum, a bridge is placed on to and around the top of a pot using an overhead crane and hook. Sepulveda was injured when the crane operator readjusted the bridge and the hook became loose from the bridge, causing the bridge to fall on Sepulveda. Sepulveda filed a products liability claim under the Washington Product Liability Act (WPLA) against Ulven, the manufacturer of the hook, and Central Machine Works, which supplied the hook to Vanalco.

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws Image

This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.

The Article 8 Opt In Image

The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.

Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin Image

With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.

Legal Possession: What Does It Mean? Image

Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.

The Stranger to the Deed Rule Image

In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.