Introduction
In the case, Leesa Bunch v. Hoffinger Industries, a jury argued in favor of the plaintiff by awarding $12,526,890.70 compensation. The Court of Appeal affirmed this decision. The following analysis evaluates the facts of the case to ascertain whether the judgment was fair.
Case Issue
According to the case files, Leesa Bunch, an eleven-year-old girl, was playing near an aboveground swimming pool owned by Joe Frank and his wife, Loretta when she decided to dive into the shallow pool. The consequence of the dive was a neck injury. This caused a quadriplegic accident that has made her permanently dependent on a diaphragm pacemaker and a breathing ventilator. The plaintiff filed a negligence suit against the corporations involved in manufacturing and selling the pool liners. The main defendants were Hoffinger, the manufacturer of the pool linings, and McMaster, the company that sold the liners to the Franks. According to Bunch, the companies made substandard products in terms of design and product qualities. Additionally, they failed to provide warnings of expected diving consequences to pool users.
The plaintiff also cited that the involved companies breached their warranties and failed to respond appropriately to the accident. The plaintiff requested over sixteen million dollars, but the request was reduced to twelve million dollars after the court identified comparative fault from other non-defendants. The court held that an 11-year old could not evaluate the consequences of diving in an aboveboard swimming pool as stipulated by the defendants. Additionally, the court used witness accounts to demonstrate the effectiveness of warning signs in preventing similar accidents. The jury maintained that the presence of a strong and visible warning sign could have discouraged the plaintiff from diving into the pool. Frank also admitted that if Hoffinger’s linings could have had a warning of a neck injury, neither could he have allowed children to play near it, nor place a bench, which was used to support the dive. The Court of Appeal maintained that the jury did not make a mistake in their decision against the defendants.
Facts
In 1993, the plaintiff, Bunch was playing with her younger brother Eric, and friend, Tyler Breeding near Frank’s aboveboard swimming pool. The pool had been donated as a gift to the Franks between 1988 and 1990. However, its rotting pool liners had prompted Frank to purchase a new one from McMaster, one of the defendants in the case. McMaster was not the manufacturer but a waterworks supplier. Hoffinger was the manufacturer and was blamed for failing to compel consumers to erect warning signs despite knowing the effects of diving into the shallow pool. The manufacturer denied liability for consequences faced by the consumers. Additionally, the supplier argued that the depth of the pool was sufficient to discourage users from diving. The manufacturer maintained that its products had safety signs discouraging people from diving. Bunch’s experts revoked the argument by stating that effective signs required attention getters to attract attention, a statement of the main rule, and a description of consequences to attract the attention of the users. Most of the witnesses claimed that Hoffinger’s liners had small warning signs that did not create any effect on the consumers. The court held that the defendants had a case to answer and found them guilty of negligence. A settlement of over twelve million dollars was passed by the court.
Analysis
In this case, Bunch’s experts presented one of the most important arguments. According to a statement made by Ross Buck, a professor of communication sciences and psychology, warnings are meant to prevent consequences by informing individuals of any impending danger. Additionally, Ralph Johnson, another professor in sports administration stated that warnings are meant to demonstrate the expected consequences in case of a breach. The arguments from these scholars presented professional evidence on what was expected of the defendants. Danny Cargile, one of Hoffinger’s employees admitted that the presence of warnings prevented diving and related injuries. These statements presented occupational and academic evidence, which strengthened Bunch’s claims of negligence.
Although Hoffinger presented a motion for summary judgment that distanced its involvement or liability to Bunch’s case, the court maintained that it was its duty to safeguard its consumers. Hoffinger’s warnings were considered ineffective to an eleven-year-old girl, who had been watching the Olympics and was eager to try some of the moves done by experienced swimmers. Additionally, Mrs. Frank admitted to having issued numerous warnings to the children about the depth of the pool. However, she claimed that the age of the children evoked the need to experiment, hence their decision to dive once she entered the house. Buck, who claimed that the age of children influenced most of their decisions, supported this statement. She stated that children required realistic consequences to deter them from experimenting in a ‘backyard swimming pool’.
According to the cases presented by Hoffinger in his defense, most of the participants were above fifteen years old. The age gap between Bunch and Hoffinger’s participants influenced the jury’s decision to support the Bunch. Whereas all Hoffinger’s plaintiffs lost their cases to the defendants, they were all qualified to assess and evaluate the magnitude of risk in diving into a shallow pool. However, Bunch was only eleven years, and the court maintained that she neither could evaluate the magnitude of risk nor was she forewarned about the consequence of her actions.
In the case Milwaukee Electric Tool Corp. v. Superior Court,1For example, the court maintained that the defendant was not liable for safeguarding the plaintiff from harm. Additionally, most of the cases found the defendant mature enough to deduce the dangers of a shallow pool. In the defendants’ appeal, evidence produced by the plaintiff’s experts revoked the first contention on the duty to warn. The second appeal of the primary assumption of risk was revoked by the fact that the plaintiff was only eleven years old and could not make informed choices. The experts also demonstrated that Hoffinger’s omissions led to Bunch’s injuries. The admitted evidence on Hoffinger’s accidents demonstrated the company’s negligence. Separating the legal concerns would have brought similar witnesses and served as baggage to the court.
Conclusion
Bunch received a settlement of over $12 million for her accident at Frank’s overboard pool. She cited and proved negligence from Hoffinger, the manufacturer, and McMaster, the supplier of pool liners. Although the defendants denied the charges, a jury in the first hearing ruled in favor of the plaintiff and the Court of Appeal supported the decision.
Works Cited
Bunch V. Hoffinger Industries Inc 20 Cal.Rptr.3d 780 (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 1278.
Footnotes
- See Bunch V. Hoffinger Industries Inc 20 Cal.Rptr.3d 780 (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 1278.