The primary legal issue of the case was to determine whether a manufacturer is strictly liable in tort when an article he places on the market proves to have a defect that causes injury to a human being.

This verdict was appealed by the manufacturer to the Supreme Court of California which was presided by Gibson, C. J., Schauer, J., McComb, J., Peters, J., Tobriner, J., and Peek, J., and the opinion was delivered by Judge Roger J Traynor.

In 1955, the plaintiff, Mr William B Greenman received a Shopsmith, which is a power tool that can be used as a saw, drill and a lathe, as a Christmas gift from his wife.

In 1957, the plaintiff, Mr Greenman brought charges against Yuba Power Products, Inc and the retailer from where the Shopsmith was purchased, for breach of expressed and implied warranties and negligence.

The case was heard in the Superior Court of San Diego County, by Judge Robert W Conyers and an appointed jury.

The evidence presented by the plaintiff in the preliminary trial primarily supported the negligence of the manufacturer and the inherent defects of the product.

The manufacturer argued that the period of ten and a half months that passed after the injury was beyond the reasonably permitted time to create a cause of action for breach of warranties.

[5] To strengthen their argument, the defence brought up section 1769 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, which states that a purchaser of a product must notify the manufacturer of a breach of warranty within a reasonable time period.

[6] Due to this ambiguity, Yuba Power Products, Inc disputed the judgement and claimed that it was prejudicial in nature, as was the complaint breach of warranties filed by the plaintiff.

He points out that while this legislation is made to protect sellers from undue delayed claims for damages, the personal injury that was inflicted in this case plays an important role in the determination of the judgement.

Therefore, rules made to govern warranties that were developed for commercial purposes cannot be invoked to determine a manufacturer's liability when their product has caused injury.

[16] Besides its impact on legal jurisprudence, the rationale and precedent set by Greenman v Yuba Power Products, Inc. has also aided the judgement of several cases that followed it.