Rowe, an employee of said Providence Gravure, Inc., was cleaning one of said presses with a volatile substance when static electricity generated by said press ignited it causing a fire in his clothing that resulted in his death.
#PRINTPRESS RI FREE#
She further alleges that at that time defendant knew or should have known that said presses are in normal course of use cleaned with highly volatile substances and that this in combination with free static electricity presents an unusual hazard to persons working on or near said presses, and that on May 27, 1963, the said Warren S. and installed in its said plant certain presses, that it knew or should have known that said presses when operated generated static electricity which, if not led off or otherwise disposed of, creates a hazard to persons working on or near said presses. 3323 plaintiff alleges that prior to May 27, 1963, the defendant sold to Providence Gravure, Inc. Rowe, who was at that time employed in said plant. in Providence, Rhode Island, on May 27, 1963, which resulted in the death of the plaintiff's intestate, one Warren S. They arise out of a fire at the plant of Providence Gravure, Inc.
#PRINTPRESS RI TRIAL#
In each case the defendant has impleaded third-party defendants under the provisions of Rule 14(a), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.īy agreement of the parties, the actions were consolidated for trial to the Court. Rowe, seeks to recover damages for the death of her intestate which she claims was caused by the negligence of the respective defendants named therein.
In these two actions brought under the provisions of the Rhode Island Death By Wrongful Act statute the plaintiff, as administratrix of the estate of Warren S. Sherwin-Williams Co., 8 Cir.,ġ91 F.2d 277 Yaun v.
DeSanno Son, Inc., 3 Cir.,Ģ09 F.2d 544, no such duty extends to the potential danger involved in the totally unanticipated misuse of an item. "While a designer or manufacturer may have a duty to warn of a latent limitation in even a perfectly made article, Tomao v. Universal Oil Products Company, 1957, 10 Cir., 250 F.2d 603. General Motors Corporation, 1966, 4 Cir., 355 F.2d 814 Marker v. of the potential hazard involved in said misuse of said press. There was no duty on the part of either of said defendants to warn Providence Gravure, Inc. There was no reason for either of said defendants to anticipate that the decedent or his fellow employees would be permitted to clean said press while it was not in the "off impression" state and the web of paper was moving through it. The special hazard created by such action must have been known to said employees of Providence Gravure, Inc. To clean said press with a highly flammable solvent with the web moving was not a misuse of said press to be anticipated by the defendants or either of them.
With new technology, computers, smartphones, etc., the students may be unaware of how important the printing press was to society upon its invention and development. It is often known as one of the most important and revolutionary inventions in history, and without it, printed books, magazines, and newspapers would not have been possible. Our Printing Press lesson plan introduces students to the invention of the printing press and its inventor, Johann Gutenberg.
0 kommentar(er)
