How “Misuse” May Be a Defense in an Indiana Product Liability Lawsuit

Any company that manufactures and sells a consumer product has a legal duty to ensure that product is safe for its intended and ordinary use. If a product has a defect in its design or manufacture, or the instructions do not contain proper warnings about any known safety risks, the manufacturer may be held legally responsible if that defect or failure to warn injures a customer. At the same time, the manufacturer can defend against such a product liability claim by attempting to shift blame onto the customer.

Indiana Appeals Court Revives Defective Pressure Cooker Lawsuit

For example, Indiana product liability law recognizes an affirmative defense of “misuse.” Basically, if the manufacturer can show that the customer misused the product and that misuse both “caused their injuries” and “was not reasonably foreseeable by the seller,” then the manufacturer cannot be held responsible. One way a manufacturer can prove misuse is by citing evidence the customer failed to follow the product’s instruction manual or label warnings.

Of course, just because a manufacturer claims misuse does not mean they have evidence to support such a defense. A recent decision from a federal judge in Indiana, John v. Team International Group of America, Inc., provides a helpful illustration of this point. The plaintiffs in this case are a husband and wife who suffered horrific burns when their pressure cooker exploded.

According to depositions taken as part of the lawsuit, the wife testified that she used the pressure cooker about 10 to 15 times without incident. On each of those occasions, she “waited ten minutes for the pressure to naturally release” before easily opening the lid. On the day of the accident, she followed the same procedure but “the lid did not turn, which had never happened before.” She nevertheless believed that the lid was stuck and the device was no longer pressurized.

The husband then opened the pressure cooker. Unfortunately, that was when the lid “exploded up,” ejecting its heated contents onto both plaintiffs. The plaintiffs subsequently sued the manufacturer of the pressure cooker.

The manufacturer’s defense was that the plaintiffs misused the pressure cooker by “improperly forcing” the lid open. The defense argued the plaintiffs simply failed to read the manual and follow the included safety warnings. The trial court agreed with the defense and dismissed the case at summary judgment.

The Indiana Court of Appeals held that was premature. The “undisputed evidence” did not support a conclusion of misuse. To the contrary, the deposition testimony suggested a jury could find that the plaintiffs “did not force the pressure cooker in direct contravention of the User Manual’s warning.” That made it improper for the trial court to dismiss the lawsuit at the summary judgment stage.

Contact a Madisonville Products Liability Lawyer Today

Product liability lawsuits are often among the most complex types of personal injury cases. It is therefore essential to work with an experienced Madisonville products liability lawyer who can help you build a complete case. Contact Whitfield Crosby & Flynn today to schedule a free consultation. We have offices in Madisonville, Kentucky; Chattanooga, Tennessee; and Indianapolis, Indiana.

Source:

scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9654199866871841907