Fyssakis v. Knight Equipment Corp., 108 Nev. 212

826 P.2d 570 (Nev. 1992) · Supreme Court of Nevada · March 5, 1992 · No. 22215

Summary

The Supreme Court of Nevada reversed a summary judgment in favor of defendants in a strict products liability action. The plaintiff, a dishwasher, was blinded when dishwashing soap got into his eye, and he sued the soap manufacturer and dispenser manufacturer. The court held that genuine issues of fact existed regarding whether the soap's warning adequately communicated the risk of blindness and whether the dispenser was defectively designed, as evidenced by an expert affidavit.

Court
Supreme Court of Nevada
Writing for the Court
Per Curiam
Jurisdiction
Nevada
Decision date
March 5, 1992
Docket number
22215
Procedural posture
Appeal from district court's order granting summary judgment to respondents on strict products liability claims.
Standard of review
Summary judgment is appropriate only when no genuine issue of fact remains for trial and one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.
Precedential value
Published
Parties
Paul Fyssakis v. Knight Equipment Corporation and U.N.X. Chemicals, Inc.
Disposition
reversed

Topics

products liabilitystrict liabilitysummary judgmentcivil proceduretorts

Practice areas

Products LiabilityTorts

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the district court erred by granting summary judgment to UNX on Fyssakis's strict products liability claim based on the soap's allegedly inadequate warning.
  2. Whether the district court erred by granting summary judgment to Knight on Fyssakis's strict products liability claim based on an alleged design defect in the dispenser.

Holdings

  1. A genuine issue of fact existed as to whether the soap was defective because a product must include a warning that adequately communicates the dangers that may result from its use or foreseeable misuse, and it was not clear that the soap's warning adequately communicated that the soap could cause blindness.
  2. Fyssakis raised a genuine issue of fact regarding an alleged defect in the dispenser because his expert's affidavit stated the safety switch could be bypassed by tilting and a safer shrouding mechanism was feasible.

Key quotations

Summary judgment is appropriate only when no genuine issue of fact remains for trial and one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. (826 P.2d at 571)
Under Nevada law, a product must include a warning that adequately communicates the dangers that may result from its use or foreseeable misuse; otherwise, the product is defective. (826 P.2d at 571-72)
Under Nevada law, evidence that a product lacked adequate safety features or that a safer alternative design was feasible at the time of manufacture will support a strict liabilities claim. (826 P.2d at 572)

Factual background

Paul Fyssakis, a dishwasher at the Sahara Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas, got dishwashing soap in his eye and was blinded. The soap was manufactured by UNX and dispensed by a Knight dispenser. Neither the soap nor the dispenser carried a warning that protective eyewear should be worn or that the soap could cause blindness; the soap only bore the universal symbol for corrosiveness. Fyssakis's safety expert stated that the dispenser's safety switch could be bypassed by tilting it at a certain angle and that the dispenser could have been designed with a safer shrouding mechanism.

Procedural history

Fyssakis sued UNX and Knight for strict products liability and negligence after dishwashing soap blinded him. The district court granted summary judgment for both defendants on the strict liability claims. Fyssakis appealed.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…