Although the injured man was listed as the plaintiff (victim, the party bringing suit) he actually had little to do with it. The insurance company that provided his medical expenses (I believe) actually filed for him. The injured party will get whatever is leftover after the lawyers and insurance company are through, which probably won't be much.
To prove the manufacturer liable, the ins. co. either had to prove negligence on Ryobi's part, or product liability, a tort called strict liabilty. What surprises me is, after filing the complaint (lawsuit) in the defenant's Answer, they should have filed a comparative defense, which alleges the injury was also in part the plaintiff's fault, which shouldn't have been difficult to do. Comparative defense states that the damages will decrease as the plaintiff's liability increases until the magic point of 51%, whereby the plaintiff is deemed to be more liable for his injuries than the defendant, hence, no damages aawarded.
Without doubt, the injury was preventable, and foreseeable, so both parties were liable. The jury was left to determine damages awarded.
Subscribe now and save up to 56%
© 2017 The Taunton Press, Inc. All rights reserved.
Become a member and get instant access to thousands of videos, how-tos, tool reviews, and design features.
Start your subscription today and save up to 56%