Nowak by & Through Nowak v. Faberge U.S.A., Inc. - 812 F. Supp. 492 (M.D. Pa. 1992)

Rule:

A manufacturer may be liable for the failure to adequately warn where its warning is not prominent, and not calculated to attract the user's attention to the true nature of the danger due to its position, size or coloring of its lettering. A warning may be found to be inadequate if its size or print is too small or inappropriately located on the product. The warning must be sufficient to catch the attention of persons who could be expected to use the product, to apprise them of its dangers, and to advise them of the measures to take to avoid these dangers. The adequacy of the warning is a question of fact for the jury, and expert testimony is admissible on the issue of adequacy.

Facts:

Defendant Faberge U.S.A., Inc., manufactured the product Aqua Net Hair Spray by assembling component parts, inserting the liquid solvent under pressure and applying the labeling language on the can. Plaintiff’s sister, Amy Nowak, purchased the product and when she tried to use it, the spray spurted out and came in contact with an open flame on a nearby gas stove and enveloped her in flames causing serious burns to her head and body. Plaintiffs Alison, Leo, Amy, Leo and Elizabeth all surnamed Nowak brought a products liability case for serious burn injuries. The jury found verdict against defendant manufacturer as the jury found that the valve system in the hair spray can was defective when it was distributed for sale by defendant because it failed to operate properly and was also defective because it did not contain adequate warnings. Defendant filed post-trial motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for a new trial. The manufacturer claimed the jury should not have been instructed on the issues of a defective valve system and inadequate warnings, and that the evidence did not support the verdict.

Issue:

Was the jury verdict in a products liability case against defendant manufacturer proper?

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The court denied the motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for a new trial. As the court found that a defect in a product could be proved with evidence of the occurrence of a malfunction and with evidence eliminating abnormal use or reasonable secondary causes for the malfunction, and the resolution of those issues was for the jury. The court further held that only unforeseeable contributory conduct by the consumer would insulate the defendant manufacturer from strict products liability, and the question of foreseeability was for the jury. The jury was properly instructed on foreseeability both as to the defect and proximate cause. The question of whether the product had sufficient instructions and warnings so as to make the product safe was also for the jury to determine. There was sufficient evidence for the jury to conclude that the warnings were inadequate, did not sufficiently inform the user of the possible risks in the product, that different warnings could have made a difference, and that the warnings were inadequate.