1. Timeline
1.1. Magoo designing new recorder for home use. Under Giant Corp.
1.2. Magoo subcontracts printed circuit design to Alla Bord
1.3. Bord prepares schematic of design and send to Magoo
1.4. Magoo requests changes to make board layout more efficient
1.5. Changes include changing location of power supply
1.6. Bord makes requested changes but attempts to warn magoo over the phone that the changes will work but might increase risk of shock to any consumer who opens the device
1.7. Magoo does not understand Bord and assures Bord he has done a good job.
1.8. new design saves money for Giant Corp.
1.9. During Alpha testing Sam Bupkis with best buy visits and touches one of the exposed recorders and gets shocked
2. People Involved
2.1. Michael Magoo
2.1.1. Works for Giant Corp
2.1.2. Professional electronics design engineer
2.2. Alla Bord
2.2.1. Czech engineer
2.2.2. subcontractor
2.2.3. Limited english
2.2.4. Located in Prague
2.3. Sam Bupkis
2.3.1. visiting buyer from Circuit City
2.3.2. touched one of the open recorders during alpha testing and was shocked
2.4. Giant Corp.
2.4.1. employs magoo who designs recorder for them
2.5. Expert Electronics Engineer
2.5.1. Provides testimony at case
3. Claims/Defenses
3.1. Bupkis v. Giant Corp.
3.1.1. Negligence
3.1.1.1. Claim: According to Expert Electronics engineer: Giant's engineers should have reviewed Magoo's work and discovered the deficiencies in design
3.1.1.1.1. Defense: Alpha testing is used to find flaws. Flaw was found before sent to the public. Bupkis should not have touched the recorder.
3.1.1.2. Claim: Giant Corp. did not have ensure the safety of its visitors. Left the exposed board accessible to untrained people.
3.1.1.2.1. Defense: Bupkis should not have touched the recorder
3.1.2. Product Liability
3.1.2.1. Claim: Giant Corp is liable for the product
3.1.2.1.1. Defense: product was not sold to Bupkis, no product liability
3.2. Bupkis v. Magoo
3.2.1. Professional Negligence
3.2.1.1. Claim: According to Expert Electronics engineer: competent electronics engineer should have known from the design that the recorder was dangerous
3.2.1.1.1. Defense: It was not readily apparent from the schematic that that the layout was dangerous. He was entitled to rely on the specific expertise of Bord as the layout designer who should have put his warning in writing to be understood
3.2.2. Product Liability
3.2.2.1. Claim: Magoo is liable for the product
3.2.2.1.1. Defense: product was not sold to Bupkis, no product liability
3.3. Bupkis v. Bord
3.3.1. Professional Negligence
3.3.1.1. Claim: According to Expert Electronics engineer: competent electronics engineer should have known from the design that the recorder was dangerous
3.3.1.1.1. Defense: Hired as independant contractor who performed exactly as required of him. He warned magoo.
3.3.2. Product Liability
3.3.2.1. Claim: Bord is liable for the product
3.3.2.1.1. Defense: product was not sold to Bupkis, no product liability