Case Analysis Of Yun Tung Chow Vs. Reckitt & Colman, Inc.
3397 Words14 Pages
Case Study of case 69 A.D.3d 413: Yun Tung Chow vs. Reckitt & Colman, Inc.
Analyzed by: Ashley Sneed
Business Law 260 Summer OL
Professor Howard Hammer
11 July 2015
Part I: Overview of Case (who is involved and what they are arguing, as well as all possible theories, defenses, and torts involved)
Plaintiff and Appellant Yun Tung Chow
Defendant Reckitt & Colman, Inc.
Main Theories Involved Product Liability, Strict Liability, Negligence, Breach of Warranty
Main Defenses Involved Mistake of Fact, Contributory Negligence, Comparative Negligence, Assumption of Risk
Main Torts Involved Tort of Strict Liability, Tort of Negligence
Plaintiff and Appellant: the person bringing the case against another person in the court of law (Clarkson, Miller, Frank, Cross chapter 1). Yun Tung Chow will be referred to in this analysis as “YTC” from here on forward.
Defendant: the person being sued or accused by plaintiff in the court of law (Clarkson, Miller, Frank, Cross chapter 1). Reckitt & Colman, Inc. will be referred to in this analysis as “R&C” from here on forward.
In this case, found using WestlawNext online database through the Ball State University Libraries, the plaintiff sustained an eye injury while using the defendant’s product, a drain cleaner formulated with crystalline sodium hydroxide. Product is called “Lewis Red Devil Lye,” and will be known in this analysis from here on out as “LRDL”. The plaintiff is alleging that this product