Product Defect Case Series
Eads v. R.D. Werner Co., 109 Nev. 113, 114, 847 P.2d 1370, 1371 (1993).
Product: Ladder
Injury: Unknown
Mechanism of Injury: Fell of the ladder after allegedly overreaching
Nature of Defect: Failure to included a safety feature - thicker supports
Jury Verdict: Defense
Issue on appeal: Whether a jury instruction was improper when it instructed that a manufacturer can expect that people will heed its warnings
Product Defect Law Categories: #Warning, #SafetyFeature, #HeedingInstruction
Result: Reverse and remand. A manufacturer cannot rely on people to follow its warnings
Case Quotes:
In Robinson v. G.G.C., Inc., 107 Nev. 135, 808 P.2d 522 (1991), the district court instructed the jury: “A product which bears suitable and adequate warnings concerning the safe manner in which the product is to be used and which is safe to use if the warning is followed is not in a defective condition.” Id. at 138, 808 P.2d at 524. Because the instruction stated that an adequate warning will always shield the manufacturer from liability, this court held that it was an incorrect statement of the law. Id. at 139, 808 P.2d at 525. Instead, this court stated:
[W]arnings should shield manufacturers from liability unless the defect could have been avoided by a commercially feasible change in design that was available at the time the manufacturer placed the product in the stream of commerce.
Id.
In the instant case, the district court instructed the jury as follows:
Where an instruction or warning is given, the manufacturer may reasonably assume that it will be read and heeded; and a product bearing such a warning, that is safe for use if it is followed, is not in defective condition, nor is it unreasonably dangerous.
Eads argues that the district court erred by not giving an instruction similar to the one put forth by this court in Robinson. Eads contends that the defects in the Mark I could have been avoided prior to its manufacture in July, 1982. Specifically, the thicker side rail and the new guide brackets contained in the Mark II were known and available to Werner years prior to July, 1982, and these changes would have reduced the “cocking phenomenon” which allegedly contributed to his accident.
Werner argues that Robinson is inapplicable because the instant case does not involve a safety device. We cannot agree. While Robinson involved a product which was allegedly defective because it lacked a safety device, the holding was not fact specific. This is evident by the issue presented for review: “[W]hen, in spite of an adequate warning, a manufacturer is still liable for a foreseeable misuse.” Id. at 138, 808 P.2d at 524. Thus, Robinson applies in the instant case. Given the erroneous instruction, the jury could have easily concluded that since the warning was given, the ladder was not defective even if there was a commercially feasible design available when it was manufactured that probably would have prevented the accident.
We conclude that the jury instruction given in the instant case is indistinguishable from the instruction given in Robinson, and that the district court erred in so instructing the jury.
Eads v. R.D. Werner Co., 109 Nev. 113, 114–15, 847 P.2d 1370, 1371–72 (1993)
Werner argues that Robinson is inapplicable because the instant case does not involve a safety device. We cannot agree. While Robinson involved a product which was allegedly defective because it lacked a safety device, the holding was not fact specific. This is evident by the issue presented for review: “[W]hen, in spite of an adequate warning, a manufacturer is still liable for a foreseeable misuse.” Id. at 138, 808 P.2d at 524. Thus, Robinson applies in the instant case. Given the erroneous instruction, the jury could have easily concluded that since the warning was given, the ladder was not defective even if there was a commercially feasible design available when it was manufactured that probably would have prevented the accident.
Eads v. R.D. Werner Co., 109 Nev. 113, 115, 847 P.2d 1370, 1372 (1993)
