We have all read or heard about claims against the manufacturers of products for alleged defects which cause injury, be it motor vehicles that roll over too easily or coffee that is too hot. Maryland is like most jurisdictions in allowing recovery under the theory of “strict liability” if the plaintiff bringing suit can prove the necessary elements. However, Maryland’s highest Court recently reiterated that misuse of the product can bar such a claim.
Strict liability has been the law in Maryland since the mid-1970s. It provides that a seller of a product that is in a defective condition that is unreasonably dangerous to a consumer is responsible for damages caused by that defect, even if due care was used in manufacturing the item. The product must reach the user without substantial change in its condition when it was made. A product can be defective either because it was designed that way (such as where a vehicle’s gas tank was designed to be so close to the rear that the car would explode if it was struck), or because that particular item was defectively manufactured (a single car’s gas tank was placed improperly).
Defenses to strict liability claims include misuse of the product, where a product is safe if used as intended, but unsafe if used improperly. Thus it may be a defense for a manufacturer of a night gown that the consumer wore it inside out, exposing the stitching to catching fire on the stove while the user was cooking. Another related defense exists where warnings are provided with a product which, if followed, will make the product safe. Thus a manufacturer of a handgun that provided warnings to keep guns away from children and locked in a safe place was not responsible when his child took the gun from under the mattress where the owner kept it.
The Maryland Court of Appeals recently wrestled with another example of misuse or failure to follow warnings in the case of Lightolier v. Hoon. The plaintiffs and their homeowner’s insurer, who paid to rebuild the house after a fire, sued the manufacturer of a light fixture for an alleged defect in the fixture that caused the fire. The particular fixture had a warning that thermal insulation should not be placed within three inches of the fixture, or there was a risk of fire. After installing the fixtures, the homeowners later had some remodeling done, and a contractor sprayed insulation in the ceiling too near the fixture, later resulting in the fire that damaged the house.
In a closely divided 4-3 opinion, Maryland’s highest court agreed with the trial judge that the case against the lighting manufacturer failed as a matter of law. The Court held that it was misuse of the fixture to allow insulation to be placed too close to it, and that such misuse was the actual legal or “proximate” cause of the fire. The Court also noted that violation of the warnings against insulating too close to the fixture barred recovery. The dissenting judges felt that there was an issue about whether a safety feature that should cause the light to go out if it got too hot may have been a cause of the fire.
Despite what we may read about businesses losing products liability cases, consumers who misuse products or don’t follow warnings are not likely to recover.