As to operational effects on a slope, lets call it 11-17 degree variable slope, covered with 18″ tall grass/vegetation. And the PL said there was no problem with the cut material being ejected, as this grass was as well wet to some degree?

I call BS on that line right there. I’ve cut way too much even out here in the desert that was 12″ or taller, and it slows you down, WAY down, also it will plug up any mower from time to time while mowing!

Why was she crabing down the hill? Because she more than likely dove off the mower, rolled onece and instead of moving out of the way, she indeed did just like she told the medical folks, TRIED TO CATCH IT!

I would never try to catch even one of my quads heading for a rollover on a hill yet alone a machine with a fast moving blade swirlling around!

The Jury should have suggested told her to take a lawnmower safty course and prove whe was even capable to operate the daaumed thing, which at this point is proven to be that she was clearly outta her league attempting to deal with such a sofisticated machine!

I doubt I wil live long enough to understand how a company in the business of selling things to people could be dregged into a product liability suit when the products manufacture was not even filed against!???

While you make a good general point, as dweeb already pointed out, you STRONGLY overstate your case. The simple example (again, already given) of a motorcycle doing a wheelie proves you WRONG.

Things CAN achieve a position where a roll is possible, even on inclines that you wouldn’t think they could. Stupidly simple example: the lawnmower in question could quite easily roll on a FLAT SURFACE… if it got going fast enough and hit a low-lying objcet that stopped it suddenly. Any time you have force acting on an object that is not DIRECTLY against the centr of gravity, you will have a rotational force, and if that force is large enough to overcome friction and gravity (among other things), you will get rotation. A 45 degree angle could cause a roll BY ITSELF, but lesser angles could still have rolls occur on them.

(It’s actually possible to roll UPHILL, you know…)

Of course, all of this adds strength to the defense’s position that there was more to this than the witnesses are saying…

Not necessarily. If the tractor is traveling uphill, the drive wheels exert a reaction torque in addition to that any from gravity. On a wet grassy slope, the drive wheels could be slipping, and if they suddenly gained traction, it’s theoretically possible to create the necessary torque, in the same manner that a motorcyclist double clutches to pull a wheelie.

This is not to say I believe the power to weight ratio of the tractor is sufficient for this to happen on the slope in question, but you can’t ignore this factor in your evaluation of the physics involved.

I was appalled that the expert testimony did not consider the impossibity of the event happening as described by the plaintif.

The rule should be that any object built in accordance with objective standards should be immune from suits. My understanding is that the law does not have this rule.

The judge erred because he thinks that a jury, through its tests of credibility, can find an impossible statement to be true.

Yes, questions abound, but at least the existenc of the receipt is no longer debatable.

How many of you have gotten flyers from CALA or the Chamber of Commerce stating Kanawha County or West Virginia are judicial hell holes?

hahahaha

My own questions: why wasn’t this product immediately pulled from every retail store on the planet since it is defect in design (according to the jurors in this judicial hellhole)?
Why wasn’t Murray given any responsibility whatsoever, even though they designed this deathrap on wheels? Shouldn’t the liability assignation have gone perhaps, like this: Murray 40%, Walm-Mart 40%, plaintiff 20%? For the record, I realize that Murray wasn’t a party to this case, but that doesn’t mean they have no blame.

Deoxy and MF: a receipt and credit card bill was entered as Exhibits 11 and 13. While this contradicts deposition testimony that the mower was purchased for cash, one can certainly forgive a failure of memory on that point—though it remains curious how a 1998 mower with lots of use got purchased in 2000 at Wal-Mart. (Perhaps a different mower was purchased at Wal-Mart and the plaintiff’s late husband decided to return it and get a used mower?)

It would be interesting to know whether these exhibits were sandbagged (they sure aren’t on the pretrial list), and if so, why. But that’s a job for a real reporter: like I said, the real story here is much more interesting than what was reported.

Just a bit troubling, don’t you think, wco and td? Aren’t we supposed to take the approach that if said receipt isn’t entered into evidence, it doesn’t exist? Is it in the list of evidence presented to the court? If not, sorry, but the lawyer has no legal ground to stand on in that claim. It’s either an outright lie or hearsay.

Even I, not a lawyer, can figure that out!

“Nevertheless, the court refused to give the jury an assumption-of-the-risk instruction.
RESPONSE:We all offered a bunch of instructions(Wal mart offered an assumption of the risk) and the Court reviewed them and told us we could offer only a limited number of instructions and Wal Mart did not offer an assumption of the risk with the limited iamount of instructions and did not object to the court not allowing one from the first set.”

Apparently, the “assumption of risk” instruction WAS one of the 4 (go read the actual documents), and the judge STILL rejected it. Oh yeah, “Amazing what you can find out from an e-mail.” [rolleyes]

Amazing, yeah, if you simply assume one side or the other is the one telling the truth! Just like the reporter in this case…

Also, I’m not finding ANY mention of a rceipt anywhere, either…