Jackson v. Coast Paint & Lacquer Co. - 499 F.2d 809 (9th Cir. 1974)

Rule:

It is not essential to strict liability that the product be defective in the sense that it was not properly manufactured. If the product is unreasonably dangerous that is enough. A product may be perfectly manufactured and meet every requirement for its designed utility and still be rendered unreasonably dangerous through failure to warn of its dangerous characteristics. 

Facts:

Sterling Jackson was a painter. Jackson was using defendant paint manufacturers' paint on the inside of a railroad car. A spark of unknown origin cased a fire because the paint was extremely flammable. Jackson filed suit against defendants. The jury found in favor of defendants and the trial court entered judgment on the verdict. Jackson challenged the judgment, and argued that the jury instructions on defendants' duty to warn and contributory negligence were erroneous. 

Issue:

Were the jury instructions on duty to warn and contributory negligence erroneous?

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The court held that the duty to warn instruction was erroneous because it required negligence rather than strict liability, did not focus on what defendants knew about the flammability of the paint, and imputed any knowledge on the part of Jackson’s employer regarding the flammable nature of the paint to Jackson. The court held that the contributory negligence instruction was erroneous because it also imputed the knowledge of Jackson’s employer to Jackson.