Narrative Opinion Summary
The case involves an appeal by Salt River Project (SRP) against Westinghouse Electric Corporation concerning a jury verdict that favored Westinghouse in a breach of warranty and product liability lawsuit. The dispute arose from a defective local maintenance controller supplied by Westinghouse, which caused significant damage to SRP's steam turbine. SRP's complaint included claims of product liability, breach of warranty, and later, negligent design and maintenance. The trial court denied SRP's attempt to amend its complaint to include inadequate warnings just weeks before the trial. During the trial, improper jury instructions on assumption of risk were given, which the appellate court identified as a violation of Article 18.5 of the Arizona Constitution, as these matters should be determined by the jury. The court found that the mandatory instructions were a fundamental error, thereby reversing the jury's verdict. The case was remanded for a new trial, as the erroneous instructions likely affected the outcome. Other appellate issues were not addressed due to the reversal based on the fundamental error in jury instructions.
Legal Issues Addressed
Arizona Constitution Article 18.5subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Article 18.5 mandates that questions of contributory negligence and assumption of risk be resolved by the jury, which the court's mandatory instructions violated.
Reasoning: Article 18.5 of the Arizona Constitution mandates that questions of contributory negligence and assumption of risk be resolved by the jury.
Assumption of Risk in Product Liabilitysubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found the assumption of risk instructions were improperly given, which violated SRP's constitutional rights under Article 18.5 of the Arizona Constitution.
Reasoning: The assumption of risk instructions were deemed mandatory, instructing the jury to find in favor of Westinghouse if it proved that SRP assumed the risk, thereby infringing upon SRP's constitutional rights.
Breach of Warranty and Product Liabilitysubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: SRP alleged breach of warranty and product liability against Westinghouse due to a defect in a local maintenance controller supplied by Westinghouse.
Reasoning: The dispute originated in May 1976 when a defect in a local maintenance controller (LMC) supplied by Westinghouse caused significant damage to an SRP steam turbine, leading to a replacement cost of $1,937,869.74.
Fundamental Error in Jury Instructionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The erroneous jury instructions on assumption of risk constituted fundamental error, which is inherently reversible and prejudiced SRP.
Reasoning: In this instance, the court's instructions constituted fundamental error, which is inherently reversible.
Reversible Error and Jury Discretionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court noted that erroneous instructions likely influenced the jury's verdict, necessitating a retrial with proper instructions.
Reasoning: Erroneous jury instructions on assumption of risk likely influenced the verdict, creating confusion alongside accurate misuse instructions.