Lawnmower Suit

Case Study 1

In 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.

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. Howard's