NOWAK V. FABERGE U.S.A., INC.
812 F.Supp. 492 (M.D. Pa. 1992)
NATURE OF THE CASE: A verdict was rendered against Faberge (D) in Nowak's (P) product
liability case for injuries when P punctured a can of hair spray. D moved for judgment
notwithstanding the verdict and for a new trial.
FACTS: D manufactures the product 'Aqua Net Hair Spray' by inserting the liquid solvent
under pressure and applying labeling language on the can. The main ingredient in the solvent
is alcohol and a liquefied propellant to activate the spray which is mixed into and
dissolved in the solvent. At one time, a non-flammable fluorocarbon propellant was utilized
but it had to be discontinued because it caused environmental problems in the ozone layer.
Butane and propane, were substituted as propellants for the non-flammable fluorocarbon.
Butane and propane are extremely flammable, more so than gasoline, and are considered to be
dangerous. It was decided that despite the changeover in propellant, everything must be made
to appear the same. D was already aware of actual incidents with punctured cans. P's sister
purchased the product which contained a nondescript warning: CAUTION: FLAMMABLE. DO NOT USE
NEAR FIRE OR FLAME OR WHILE SMOKING. WARNING: Avoid spraying in eyes. Contents under
pressure. Do not puncture or incinerate. Do not store at temperature above 1200 F. Keep out
of reach of children. Use only as directed. Intentional misuse by deliberately concentrating
and inhaling the contents can be harmful or fatal. P tried to use the product but it would
not spray but came out in spurts. P believed that she could remove the contents of the can
and pour it into a pump bottle. She tried a can opener and then she punctured the side of
the can. The spray came into contact with a gas stove and enveloped P in flames. P was
severely burned on her head and body. The jury found that the valve system in the hair spray
can was defective and the product was also defective because it did not contain adequate
warnings. P got $1,500,000.00. D filed post-trial motions for judgment notwithstanding the
verdict, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 50, and for a new trial, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 59.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment