This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

McGonigal (P), a military man, was engaged in hand grenade exercises. When P threw his grenade, the fuse did not give him the expected four or five-second delay but instead blew up as soon as he released the activation primer. Gearhart (D) was the manufacturer of grenades. Day & Zimmerman (D) assembled the grenades and were in charge of X-raying them to look for defects. P sued Gearhart (D), Day & Zimmerman (D) and Pengo (D). On the third day of trial, P settled with Gearhart (D) and Pengo (D). The trial continued between P and Day & Zimmerman (D). In the trial, all parties agreed that the defect occurred in the manufacturing process at Gearhart (D). Day & Zimmerman (D) moved for a directed verdict claiming that P did not show that Day & Zimmerman (D) did not use the standard of care and P did not prove that Day & Zimmerman (D) was negligent. The trial court granted the directed verdict, holding that the evidence in trial did not support the conclusion that the accident would not have occurred but for the negligence. P appealed, claiming that res ipsa loquitur should have been applied because the negligence could be inferred from the mere fact that the accident occurred.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.