McGoldrick

On August 14, 1967, appellant, William McGoldrick, a glazier, was injured on the job when a saw manufactured by defendant Porter-Cable Tools (PCT) attached to a stand manufactured by defendant Commercial Tool and Die Company (CTD) flew apart due to a broken saw housing and struck appellant’s left forearm severely injuring the same. Appellant sued both defendants on the theory of strict liability in tort (Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc. (1963) 59 Cal.2d 57 [ 27 Cal.Rptr. 697 , 377 P.2d 897 , 13 A.L.R.3d 1049 ]) and the cause was tried to a jury. A nonsuit was granted as to respondent CTD and the jury returned verdict in favor of respondent PCT.

We afflrm the judgment as to CTD and reverse as to PCT.

Appellant contends on the basis of bare assertion that error was committed in granting CTD’s motion for nonsuit. References to the record having been tardily filed after oral argument and submission of this case, we could consider that California Rules of Court, rule 15(a) has been violated and not review the record. (Haynes v. Gwynn (1967) 248 Cal.App.2d 149 [ 56 Cal.Rptr. 82 ].) However, we find uncontradicted evidence shows that the housing on which the saw in…

I concur in affirming the judgment as to Commercial Tool and Die Co., Inc., and I dissent from the reversal of the judgment as to Porter-Cable Tools. The evidence so overwhelmingly supports a finding of no liability on the part of defendant Porter-Cable Tools that any error in failing to give the requested instruction was harmless. No different result was probable even if the instruction had been given. Furthermore, there was no error in the court's refusal to instruct on "ordinary" contributory negligence since it was not made an issue in the case by the evidence offered by defendant. The entire case was tried on the issues of whether there was in fact a defect, and if so, whether that defect caused the injury. *Page 892 Before a party may claim reversible error on the basis of the failure to give a requested instruction, he must show more than that his proffered instruction was a correct abstract statement of the law. He must show that the instruction contained a full and correct statement of the law as applied to the issues raised by the evidence. ( Wilkinson v. Southern Pacific Co., 224 Cal.App.2d 478 [ 36 Cal.Rptr. 689 ]; Trelut v. Kazarian, 110 Cal.App.2d 506 [ 243 P.2d 104…

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 887 OPINION On August 14, 1967, appellant, William McGoldrick, a glazier, was injured on the job when a saw manufactured by defendant Porter-Cable Tools (PCT) attached to a stand manufactured by defendant Commercial Tool and Die Company (CTD) flew apart due to a broken saw housing and struck appellant's left forearm severely injuring the same. Appellant sued both defendants on the theory of strict liability in tort ( Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc. (1963) 59 Cal.2d 57 [ 27 Cal.Rptr. 697 , 377 P.2d 897 , 13 A.L.R.3d 1049 ]) and the cause was tried to a jury. A nonsuit was granted as to respondent CTD and the jury returned verdict in favor of respondent PCT. We affirm the judgment as to CTD and reverse as to PCT. Appellant contends on the basis of bare assertion that error was committed in granting CTD's motion for nonsuit. References to the record having been tardily filed after oral argument and submission of this case, we could consider that California Rules of Court, rule 15(a) has been violated and not review the record. ( Haynes v.…