Products Liability Law Daily Wrap Up, DESIGN AND MANUFACTURING DEFECTS—HOUSEHOLD PRODUCTS—N.D. Ill.: Negligence claim in suit over allegedly defective pressure cooker survives summary judgment, (Sep 4, 2025)

By Nicholas Kaster, J.D.

The expert’s opinions were appropriately based on sufficient data, an examination of an exemplar, and a reliable application to the facts of the case.

A federal district court in Illinois has ruled that a negligence claim in a suit involving an allegedly defective pressure cooker survived summary judgment and could proceed to trial. The court admitted the testimony of the claimant’s expert. Based on that testimony, the court held that there was circumstantial evidence of a defect. However, the claimant’s inadequate design and failure to warn claims did not survive summary judgment. The inadequate design claim failed because the defendant company was not a manufacturer. And because the claimant could not show that the user manual contained contradictory warnings, her failure to warn claim did not survive (Allgood v. CNA International, Inc., No. 23 CV 462 (N.D. Ill. Sep. 3, 2025)).

Background. While preparing a roast in her Magic Chef 7-in-1 Multicooker, the claimant, a resident of North Carolina, was injured when the device’s lid opened causing its “scalding hot contents to be forcefully ejected from the pressure cooker.” The claimant received the multicooker as a gift.

The claimant filed suit against CNA International, Inc. d/b/a MC Appliance Corporation raising claims under North Carolina law for inadequate warning, inadequate design, common law negligence, breach of express warranty, and breach of implied warranty. CNA moved for summary judgment on all claims.

CNA imports, markets, distributes, and sells several consumer kitchen goods, including the Magic Chef Multicooker. The multicooker is produced by Midea Electric Trading, a company based in Singapore. Midea packaged the pressure cookers in color boxes featuring the Magic Chef branding, which were then sealed inside protective brown carton boxes for shipping. CNA did not open these boxes before redistributing them to retailers.

Inadequate design claim. To maintain a defective design claim in North Carolina, a plaintiff must show either: (1) at the time the product left the control of the manufacturer, the manufacturer unreasonably failed to adopt a safer, practical, feasible, and otherwise reasonable alternative design; or (2) at the time the product left the control of the manufacturer, the design or formulation of the product was so unreasonable that a reasonable person, aware of the relevant facts, would not use or consume a product of this design.

CNA argued that it was not liable for the defective design claim because an inadequate design claim applies to manufacturers, not distributors. More specifically, CNA maintained that its role was “strictly limited to that of a distributor” and it did not design, manufacture, or alter the multicooker. Therefore, it argued, no reasonable jury could find liability under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 99B-6(a). By its terms, § 99B-6(a) applies only to a manufacturer.

Section 99B-1 defines “manufacturer” as “a person or entity who designs, assembles, fabricates, produces, constructs or otherwise prepares a product or component part of a product prior to its sale to a user or consumer.” A “seller,” on the other hand, includes “a retailer, wholesaler, or distributor, and means any individual or entity engaged in the business of selling a product, whether such sale is for resale or for use or consumption” (emphasis added). A showing that a defendant is not the product’s manufacturer moots a plaintiff’s defective design claim. Courts applying North Carolina law have held that mere sellers, including those who add only finishing touches to a product, are not manufacturers within the meaning of § 99B-1.

The court held that, under North Carolina law, CNA did not meet the definition of manufacturer, and no reasonable jury could conclude otherwise. The claimant advanced no evidence or argument that would allow a jury to reasonably conclude that CNA was the manufacturer. Accordingly, summary judgment was granted on the inadequate design claim.

Failure to warn claim. Failure to warn claims under North Carolina law, whether rooted in negligence or products liability, require the plaintiff to establish that the defendant owed the plaintiff a “duty to warn of danger, the nonperformance of which will, when it is the proximate cause of injury, give rise to liability.” A duty to warn is imposed on a manufacturer or seller when it has either “actual or constructive knowledge” of a product’s danger. North Carolina law disfavors stacking inferences to find liability, including in the failure to warn context.

The multicooker’s user manual included several relevant safety warnings. Among others, the “important safety instructions” section advises: “After cooking, use extreme caution when opening the lid. ALWAYS open the lid away from you to avoid skin contact with any heat or steam. Serious burns can result from steam inside the unit.” Regarding opening the lid, the “Operating Instructions” section states “WARNING: DO NOT open the multicooker until the unit has cooled and all internal pressure has been released. If the handle is difficult to open, this indicates that the cooker is still pressurized. DO NOT force open. Any pressure in the cooker can be hazardous.” CNA argued that these instructions and warnings clearly identify that forcing the multicooker open when pressurized presents a hazard and provides the user with clear instructions for how to safely open the multicooker after all pressure has been released.

The claimant argued that the user manual contained “contradictory” warnings that rendered other warnings inadequate. In support, she pointed to the “safety features” section of the user manual, which states: “Open and Close Lid Safety Device: If there is pressure inside the cooker, then the lid will be set to the lock position to prevent opening.” She characterized these statements as contradictory, arguing that a jury might find she was not adequately warned.

The court did not agree. The manual states that users should not open the multicooker until “all internal pressure has been released,” and that this was signified by a handle that is difficult to slide open. In that case, the “the cooker is still pressurized – DO NOT FORCE OPEN. Any pressure in the cooker can be hazardous.” This information is repeated in the operating instructions under “Lid Case: Opening.” That section states that before opening, users should “make sure the multicooker has finished cooking,” and “WARNING: DO NOT open the multicooker until the unit has cooled and all internal pressure has been released. If the handle is difficult to open, this indicates that the cooker is still pressurized. DO NOT force open. Any pressure in the cooker can be hazardous.”

There was no dispute that the claimant read the manual before using the device. Her argument that the manual contains contradictory language—“If there is pressure inside the cooker, then the lid will be set to the lock position to prevent opening”— fell flat. She did not explain how this statement or any other information in the manual is contradictory, or spell out a chain of reasoning explaining the way that a fact finder might do so, the court said. The manual also expressly states, “any pressure in the cooker can be hazardous.” If there is some inconsistency, said the court, the claimant “certainly has not explained it.” Accordingly, summary judgment on the failure to warn claim was granted.

Negligence claim. To establish a product liability action based on negligence, a plaintiff must show that: (1) evidence of a standard of care owed by the reasonably prudent person in similar circumstances; (2) breach of that standard of care; (3) injury caused directly or proximately by the breach; and (4) loss because of the injury. A plaintiff must present evidence that the product was in a defective condition at the time it left the defendant’s control.

Here, CNA sought to exclude the testimony of the claimant’s expert witness, an engineer. The expert examined exemplars and other documents and materials, and concluded, among other things, that the mechanical interlock design intended to lock the lid was defective in that it failed to perform its function. This conclusion was based on, among other things, the geometric dimensions of the pin, lid, and cooker, which resulted in the interlock “providing very little resistance to the user.” Moreover, he determined that “the presence of a defective pressure interlock increases the likelihood of the lid being opened and the cooker contents being expelled under pressure.”

CNA challenged the reliability of the expert’s testimony. CNA argued that since the claimant threw away the device’s lid, the expert could not test the actual multicooker used. The exemplar multicooker that the expert examined was used when it was purchased such that its prior history was unknown. CNA noted that the exemplar’s lid had a preexisting scratch that the expert concluded meant that the lid was forced open while under pressure by a prior user (an interlock override event). CNA challenged the reliability of the expert’s opinion that the device was defectively designed because the mechanical interlock system could not meet the Underwriters Laboratories Cover Opening Standard. According to CNA, the expert’s methodology relied on broad generalizations and failed to account for whether the exemplar met relevant Underwriters Laboratories’ standards before the exemplar was damaged.

The court, however, determined that the expert’s conclusions were sufficiently reliable. Among other things, he explained how the exemplar he examined showed “linear defects in the coating which are consistent with wear from the lid locking pin sliding over the tab,” and that the pre-existing scratch on the lid he examined could be the result of the lid being opened under pressure despite the sliding pin lock being held in place by the float valve. His opinions were appropriately based on sufficient data, an examination of an exemplar, and a reliable application to the facts of this case, said the court. His testimony would also assist the fact finder with determining whether a defect existed at the relevant time, the court explained, and the methodology underlying his conclusions was sound and sufficiently reliable for trial.

Because the expert’s testimony was admissible, the court held that there was circumstantial evidence of a defect, including from his testimony concerning the scratch on the lid he examined. As such, the common law negligence claim remains for a jury to decide at trial, the court held.

Breach of warranty claims. The court granted summary judgment on the breach of express warranty claim because the claimant could not show she relied on the warranty in making her purchase. This was because she didn’t purchase the multicooker, she received it as a gift. The breach of implied warranty claim failed for much the same reason as her express warranty claim failed—contractual privity is required to maintain a suit for breach of implied warranty, which the claimant could not show.

The case is No. 23 CV 462.

Judge: Jenkins, L.

Attorneys: Adam John Kress (Johnson Becker, PLLC) for Tarsha Shanta Allgood. April K. Toy (Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP) for CNA International, Inc. d/b/a MC Appliance Corp.

Companies: CNA International, Inc. d/b/a MC Appliance Corp.

MainStory: TopStory DesignManufacturingNews WarningsNews HouseholdProductsNews IllinoisNews NorthCarolinaNews