Products Liability Law Daily Wrap Up, EXPERT EVIDENCE—HOUSEHOLD PRODUCTS—E.D. Ky.: Sunbeam wins summary judgment in defective warming throw suit, (Apr 2, 2020)

By Robert B. Barnett Jr., J.D.

The injured party failed to produce expert testimony to establish that the warming blanket was unreasonably dangerous in design and did not have adequate warnings. The court agreed with Sunbeam that consumer expectations was only one factor in determining whether a defect is unreasonably dangerous.

Sunbeam Products, Inc. was entitled to summary judgment in a suit alleging that its warming throw blanket was defective because the injured party’s failure to produce expert testimony was fatal to his products liability claims, a Kentucky federal district court has ruled. The injured man’s inability to offer expert testimony on issues such as alternative designs and warnings failed to overcome the statutory presumption that exists in Kentucky that a product is not defective if it conforms to certain standards and testing (Johnston v. Sunbeam Products, Inc., March 31, 2020, Reeves, D.).

The plaintiff in the case was injured in a motorcycle accident that rendered him a paraplegic. He fell asleep one day with a Sunbeam Warming Throw on him, which burned the heel of his right foot. Sunbeam Products, Inc. manufactured the throw; and a product warning was attached to the throw and included in the throw’s user manual. The warning stated that the product should not be used by paraplegics. Neither the injured man nor his wife read either warning. The man sued Sunbeam in state court alleging strict liability and negligence for defective design, manufacturing defects, and failure to warn. The man asserted that the throw was defective in design because it could become hot enough to cause serious burns to a person using it in a reasonably expected and anticipated way. He also maintained that there was inadequate quality control of the product during manufacturing and testing. Further, he contended that the product was defective because it lacked certain safety features and that Sunbeam failed to warn the public that the product may heat to the point of causing serious burns. He additionally alleged that there was a lack of adequate instruction for use and operation and lack of adequate labeling and warnings of potential hazards. Sunbeam removed the case to federal court and moved for summary judgment.

Defective products. Under Kentucky Revised Statutes §411.310(2), a statutory presumption exists in product liability cases that a product is not defective if it conforms with certain standards and testing. Sunbeam produced an expert who examined the throw and concluded that it had no operational defects, no design defects, and no manufacturing defects. He demonstrated that the throw complied with UL 964, the recognized industry safety standard for electrically heated bedding. For the court, this testimony was sufficient to establish that the throw was entitled to the statutory presumption that it was not defective. The burden then shifted to the injured party to overcome the presumption.

Expert testimony. In demonstrating that the product was unreasonably dangerous, the injured man asserted that the injury was the type that a jury could comprehend without expert testimony. Under Kentucky law, expert testimony is necessary in product liability cases to establish breach of duty and causation, unless a jury can comprehend the facts as well as an expert. To overcome the statutory presumption that the product was not defective, the man contended that his product liability suit was based on consumer expectations, which meant that he did not require expert testimony. Specifically, he asserted that the product failed to satisfy consumer expectations because it was dangerous to an extent beyond which an ordinary consumer would expect when he or she purchased it. Sunbeam countered that the consumer expectations test was only one factor in determining whether a defect is unreasonably dangerous. The manufacturer further argued that the man’s injury was not obviously caused by the throw so that it would fall within the general knowledge of a lay person. The court found that Sunbeam was correct in noting that consumer expectations was only one factor in establishing the unreasonably dangerousness of the product in question. A court also must consider the feasibility of making a safer product, the product’s inherently unsafe characteristics, and misuse, among other factors. At the very least, expert testimony was necessary to establish a practicable, safer alternative design. The injured party’s approach, which was to propose theoretical alternative designs, warnings, and defects in its pleadings, was insufficient. In the absence of expert testimony, the court concluded, the injured man could not meet his burden to overcome the statutory presumption that the product was not defective and establish it was defective. Therefore, the court granted Sunbeam’s motion for summary judgment.

The case is No. 5:19-104-DCR.

Attorneys: Douglas H. Morris (Morris & Player PLLC) for Thomas Johnston and Whitney Johnston. Brent S. Moffett (Moffett VituLascoePackus and Sims) for Sunbeam Products, Inc.

Companies: Sunbeam Products, Inc.

Cases: CourtDecisions ExpertEvidenceNews DesignManufacturingNews WarningsNews HouseholdProductsNews KentuckyNews