Products Liability Prof Blog

Eighth Circuit Applies Minnesota Statute of Repose To Bar Recovery for Damages Caused by Ventilation Fan

On April 7 the Eighth Circuit decided Integrity Floor Covering, Inc. v. Broan-Nu Tone LLC, No. 07-1824 (8th Cir. April 7, 2008) a case involving a claim for property damage to a building allegedly caused by a malfunctioning bathroom ventilation fan manufactured by the defendant.  The suit was brought more than ten years after the fan was installed, raising the issue of whether the Minnesota ten-year statute of repose, Minn. Stat. § 541.051 barred recovery because the claim arose "out of the defective and unsafe condition of an improvement to real property" or whether, or whether the  statutory exception in subdivision 1(d) for claims application to manufacturers or suppliers of "any equipment or machinery  installed upon real property" applied.  The statute applies to an "action by any person . . . to recover damages for any injury to property, real or personal . . . arising out of the defective and unsafe condition of an improvement to real property . . . brought against any person . . . furnishing . . . materials . . . ."  Minn. Stat. § 541.051, subd 1 (a) The court held that the statute covered Broan as a product manufacturer and that the exception for equipment or machinery installed upon real property did not exclude Broan because the fan, which was incorporated into the structure of the building, was ordinary building material.  The court acknowledged that the facts of the case presented a close issue, but that "the code-required interior bathroom ventilation fan is more analogous to the items Minnesota courts have found to be ordinary building materials."  The Eighth Circuit incorporated its opinion in Integrity Floor Covering in a companion case, Chicago Avenue Partners, Ltd. v. Broan-Nutone, LLC, No. 07-1784 (8th Cir. April 7, 2008), even though the fan in question in that case was not hard-wired into the buildling but was plugged in.  The court noted that the fan was connected to the buildling because it was nailed into a stud with a duct run to a hole in the roof or wall, and it required the services of someone familiar with wiring to complete the installation.

MKS

New York Court Rules Circumstantial Evidence of Product Defect Inadequate

In Ramos v. Howard Industries, N.Y., No. 26, March 13, 2008), the New York Court of Appeals dimissed an electrical lineman's suit against an electrical transformer manufacturer for his failure to rule out causes of the transformer's explosion other than product defect.  Ramos first claimed that he had injured his back when he reached out of an aerial bucket while installing the transformer on a pole.  Two years later, he claimed that the transformer had exploded and knocked him over within the bucket.  By the time he described the explosion, the transformer itself could not be located for inspection or testing.

The court said that circumstantial evidence of a defect is enough to prove a product defective but that the plaintiff must prove that the product did not perform as intended and must rule out all other causes of the failure - the essential, traditional criteria for a res ipsa instruction to the jury.  Ramos would have to offer enough competent evidence to rebut any evidence of alternative causes but Ramos' expert's theory amounted to "pure speculation" from which no reasonable jury could conclude that all other causes of the transformer explosion were excluded.  Accordingly, the court upheld the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the defendant manufacturer.  See the Product Liability Daily report.

JDP

California Adopts Sophisticated User Doctrine in Failure-to-Warn Cases

The California Supreme Court unanimously held that the sophisiticated user doctrine applies in California, bringing that state's law into line with both federal law and the law in most states. Johnson v. American Standard Co., Cal. No. S139184, April 3, 2008, involved a claim by an air-conditioning technician that his lung disease was caused by exposure to phosgene gas released when the evaporators in air conditioning systems are serviced.  Johnson alleged that the defendants knew that phosgene gas forms when a commonly-used refrigerant is exposed to high heat, such as during welding, but failed to provide adequate warnings of that hazard.

American Standard argued that Johnson was a trained and certified professional who knew or should have known of an obvious risk widely known by industry technicians.  "Although manufacturers are responsible for products that contain dangers of which the public is unaware, they are not insurers, even under strict liability, for the mistakes or carelessness of consumers who should know of the dangers involved," according to the court.  A manufacturer is not liable to a sophisticated user of its product for failure to warn of a risk if the sophisticated user "knew or should have known of that risk."  The court conclulded that the evidence was clear that HVAC technicians knew or should have known of this risk and upheld the court of appeals dismissal of Johnson's claim.  See the Product Safety & Liability Reporter summary of the case.

JDP