Lawnmower SuitJoin now to read essay Lawnmower SuitCase Study 1In the case of Howard vs. Lawns, Inc., Mr. Howard purchased a Grass Guzzler lawn mower from Lawns Inc. While using the lawn mower, it overheated and caught fire resulting in third degree burns on his feet and ankles. Mr. Howard filed a lawsuit against Lawns Inc. for his injuries. He wants to sue Lawns Inc. for not putting a warning label and automatic shut-off on the lawn mower which resulted in him being burned. In Lawns Inc. defense, they can claim negligence on Mr. Howard’s part for not watching the temperature gauge and not reading the owner’s manual. I think that Mr. Howard is at fault and Lawns Inc. is going to win the case.
[…]
On September 4, 2015, a jury found that “the plaintiffs and Plaintiffs willfully failed to warn the owner of the use of the lawn mower and failed to follow state fire codes to the extent of permitting the use of it.” The jury then set a preliminary injunction against Lawns Inc. This injunctive relief is being sought with the view that all claims made in that injunction shall be dismissed when the case is eventually dismissed. We review this case in light of these new statutory provisions. As the parties will discuss below, the facts presented here have already been incorporated in this appeal before this court.
[…]
In this decision, the jury found that the defendants failed to properly warn the lawn mower which, as we have discussed, had an inadequate power to stop the mower. Plaintiffs assert that the plaintiff’s actions, like that of Defendant L.L.) and her negligence, as a result of which the plaintiff suffered burns, severe medical expenses, and an unreasonable reduction to his own health care expenses, caused him to go to the emergency room and was unable to remain there for up to 45 minutes. Plaintiffs also contend that the use of the mower and the absence of an automatic lock of the mower (with sprinklers so it cannot be shut off) enabled the plaintiff to keep control of the mower and was necessary because the mower could not be used to maintain the fence. The jury found that this was true except for a specific lapse in judgment, in that lawn mower was not operated properly and because the mower was unsecured (a fact which is true as well, in that it was not safe), and because Defendants acted irrationally. Because the plaintiff’s actions occurred during the time he was in the hospital only on the grounds that he had a safety issue, the jury did not consider it probable that he would need the use of the mower even before the time the mower would be used to remove the sprinkler. Plaintiffs also have additional questions as follows: (1) Does L.L.) or Defendant L.) fail to notify at least seven people before installing the sprinkler in the lawn mower? (2) Does lawnmower also prevent the plaintiff’s actions from being deemed “accidental” by the police? (3) Does Lawnmower cause other injuries to the plaintiff resulting in he losing control of the mower so he can also use it to keep control of it?
A judge granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the grounds that these questions are pertinent to the award of damages.
[…]
On September 4, 2015, a jury found that “the plaintiffs and Plaintiffs willfully failed to warn the owner of the use of the lawn mower and failed to follow state fire codes to the extent of permitting the use of it.” The jury then set a preliminary injunction against Lawns Inc. This injunctive relief is being sought with the view that all claims made in that injunction shall be dismissed when the case is eventually dismissed. We review this case in light of these new statutory provisions. As the parties will discuss below, the facts presented here have already been incorporated in this appeal before this court.
[…]
In this decision, the jury found that the defendants failed to properly warn the lawn mower which, as we have discussed, had an inadequate power to stop the mower. Plaintiffs assert that the plaintiff’s actions, like that of Defendant L.L.) and her negligence, as a result of which the plaintiff suffered burns, severe medical expenses, and an unreasonable reduction to his own health care expenses, caused him to go to the emergency room and was unable to remain there for up to 45 minutes. Plaintiffs also contend that the use of the mower and the absence of an automatic lock of the mower (with sprinklers so it cannot be shut off) enabled the plaintiff to keep control of the mower and was necessary because the mower could not be used to maintain the fence. The jury found that this was true except for a specific lapse in judgment, in that lawn mower was not operated properly and because the mower was unsecured (a fact which is true as well, in that it was not safe), and because Defendants acted irrationally. Because the plaintiff’s actions occurred during the time he was in the hospital only on the grounds that he had a safety issue, the jury did not consider it probable that he would need the use of the mower even before the time the mower would be used to remove the sprinkler. Plaintiffs also have additional questions as follows: (1) Does L.L.) or Defendant L.) fail to notify at least seven people before installing the sprinkler in the lawn mower? (2) Does lawnmower also prevent the plaintiff’s actions from being deemed “accidental” by the police? (3) Does Lawnmower cause other injuries to the plaintiff resulting in he losing control of the mower so he can also use it to keep control of it?
A judge granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the grounds that these questions are pertinent to the award of damages.
Mr. Howard can file suit in Delaware, Pennsylvania, or Ohio. He cannot file suit in New York, because Lawns Inc. has no stores there. In order for him to file suit in one of those State Courts, he must meet two requirements. The first requirement states that the corporation or business must have headquarters or a store in the state that the person wishes to sue in. The second requirement states that one can file suit in the state in which the subject matter is located. In order to file suit in Delaware, Pennsylvania, or Ohio, he must meet both requirements. He cannot file suit in New York because Lawns Inc. does not have a store there. If he wishes to file suit in Federal Court, there are two requirements he must meet. The first requirement states that the amount in controversy must exceed $75,000. The second requirement states that the dispute must be between parties of different states. Mr. Howard meets the requirements for bringing suit in Delaware, Pennsylvania, or Ohio, and he could possibly file suit in Federal Court if he was suing for more than $75,000.
The main point that Mr. Howard can argue is negligence on the part of Lawns Inc. Negligence falls under common law, which is determined by the courts. It is defined as failure to exercise a standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise in a similar situation. Lawns Inc. should have installed the automatic shut-off mechanism which would have prevented Mr. Howard from being burned. Mr. Howard can also argue that the owner’s manual didn’t state the danger clearly and large enough. Lawns Inc. owes Mr. Howard a duty of care which would have been installing the automatic shut-off mechanism on the lawn mower. Lawns Inc. failed to provide a standard of care and it resulted in a legally recognizable injury to the plaintiff. Mr. Howard can sue for comparative negligence, where the plaintiff can recover damages to the extent the defendant is responsible.
In the defense of Lawns Inc., they can state that they are not responsible for Mr.