2008 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 12-23-2008 

# T oms v . JC P e nney C o Inc P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 07-4232

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2008 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " T om s v . JC P e nney C o Inc " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 59. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/59NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 07- 4232

___________ J O A N N E TO M S; CO LI N TO M S, A p p e llan ts v . J . C. P ENNEY COM P ANY , I NC. JO H N D O E S 1-10 (fi ct i t i ou s ent i t i es)

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

fort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D . C . C i vi l A ct i on N o. 05- cv- 02582) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e Pet erG . Sher i dan

____________________________________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

D ece m ber9, 2008 B efor e: M C K E E , SM I T H , and R O T H , C i r cui tJ udges ( O pi ni on fi l ed: D ece m ber23, 2008 )

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ SM I T H , C i r cui tJ udge. Joann e T om s appea l s fr om t he D i stri ctC ou rt ’s entryof sum m aryj ud gm ent agai nst h e ri n t h i s p r o d u c t s l i a b i l i t ya c t i o n . F o rth e r e a s o n s th a tf o l l o w, we wi l l a f

f i r m.2

A ppel l antpur chas ed a t err ycl oth r obe fr om the J . C . Penneys t or e i n Fr eehol d, N e w Je rse yo n A u g u st 2 5 , 2 0 0 2 . O n A p ril 2 5 , 2 0 0 3 , w h ile liv in g a t an E a ste r S e a ls r es i dentgr oup hom e i n Fr eehol d, A ppel l antw entout s i de t o s m oke a c i gar et t e on the por ch of the home ats om e poi ntbetw een 12: 30 and 1: 00 i n t he morni ng. A ppel l ant cl ai m ed thats he dr opped a mat ch s he w as us i ng t o l i ghtherci gar et t e ont o t he col l arof t he r obe, “hea r d an ‘ expl os i on’ as t he mat ch ca m e i n cont actw i t h t he col l ar , and the fl ames i m m edi at el ys pr ead upw ar d fr om the col l art ow ar ds herfac e, dow n hers l eeve , and dow n t he r emai ni ng por t i on of the r obe t ow ar ds herl egs . ” ( A t . B r . 7. ) She r an dow n the s t eps of the ext er i orpor ch, “and w as eventual l yabl e t o t ake the burni ng r obe off of her b o d yw h ile it w a s s till i n f la m e s .” (I d .) Phi l i p W i l ens ky , A ppel l ant ’ s onl ys uppor t i ng w i t nes s , s t at ed thathe s aw A ppel l ant exi tt he bui l di ng t o s m oke a c i gar et t e, hear d hers cr eam a few m i nut es l at er , opened the door , and obs erved thatA ppel l ant ’ s r obe had c aughtfi r e. A thi s depos i t i on, he t es t i fi ed:

“ I n o tic e d h e r a rm s a n d h e r s h o u ld e rs w e re a f la m e . Y o u c o u ld s e e th e f la m e s c o m in g u p . I j us tnot i ced l i ke hers houl der s . I ts eemed l i ke both arm s had s m oke and f l ames c om i ng up fr om t hem. ” ( A pp. 192. ) W i l ens kyhel ped A ppel l antr emove t he r obe, at t ended t o her w ounds , cal l ed 911, and then as s i s t ed a pol i ce of fi ceri n put t i ng outthe fi r e bypour i ng w a te r o n th e ro b e . (A p p . 1 9 7 -9 9 , 2 5 7 -5 9 .) A ppel l ants us t ai ned burns overni net een pe r centof herbody , pr i m ar i l yherupper bodyand arm s . B yt he t i m e the fi r e had be en ext i ngui s hed, w hatr emai ned of the r obe3

w as i ns uffi ci entt o perm i tfl amm abi l i t yt es t i ng pur s uantt o t he pr ot ocol s out l i ned i n t he Fl amm abl e Fabr i cs A ct . See 16 C . F. R . § 1610 ets eq. H ow ever , atthe r eques tof East er S eal s, A ffi l i at ed E ng i neeri ng L abo rat ori es subj ect ed the r em nan t s t o “si m pli fi ed” tes t s, fr om w hi ch i tconcl uded thatt he r obe w as “nothi ghl yfl amm abl e” a nd w as m ade of m a ter ial “ su itab le f

o r c lo th in g .” (A p p . 7 8 -7 9 .) A p p e llee a lso p e rf o rm e d f lam m a b ili ty tes ts o n a n e x e m p lar ro b e f ro m th e sa m e m a n u f

a c tu re r. A c c o rd in g to A p p e llee ’s te x til e c o n su ltan t, ba se d o n h e r re v iew o f th e d a ta, “ th e f

a c e sid e o f

th e f a b ric b u rn e d a t a r a te t w o t o t hr ee t i m es m or e s l ow l yt han the mi ni m um burni ng r at e perm i t t ed byl aw ” and the b a c k s id e “ h a d a m u c h s lo w e r b u rn ra te .” (A p p . 7 5 .) A ppel l antfi l ed a c om pl ai nti n N ew J er s eySuper i orC our ton A pr i l 1, 2005, a lleg in g , in r e lev a n t p a rt: D e f e n d a n ts p lac e d in to th e stre a m o f c o m m e rc e a d e f

e c tiv e p ro d u c t, n a m e ly , the a f

o re sa id ro b e , in v io latio n o f th e N e w Je rse yP ro d u c t L iab ili ty A ct , N . J . S. A . 2A : 58C - 1 ets eq. Speci fi cal l y , defe ndant s des i gned, m anufa ctur ed, di s t r i but ed and/ ors ol d an unr eas onabl yfl amm abl e r obe, and f a iled to a d e q u a telyw a rn p lain tiff Jo a n n e T o m s o f

th e u n re a so n a b le fl amm abi l i t yof the r obe. ( A pp. 5, ¶ 5. ) A ppel l ee r emoved t he ac t i on t o t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tforthe D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s eyon M ay16, 2005 bas ed on di ver s i t yj ur i s di ct i on. A ft erA ppel l ant in d ica ted th a t sh e w o u ld n o t b e su b m itt in g a n e x p e rt re p o rt to su p p o rt h e r p ro d u c t li a b ili ty cl ai m , t he D i s t r i ctC our tauthor i zed the part i es t o m ove fors um m aryj udgm ent , w hi ch A p p e llee d id . O n S e p tem b e r 2 8 , 2 0 0 7 , the D istric t C o u rt e n ter e d su m m a ryju d g m e n t in favo r of A pp el l ee. T om s appea l s.I n hercompl ai nt , A ppel l antal l eged that“def endant s des i gned, m anufa ctur ed, di s t r i but ed 1 an d /or so ld an u n rea so n ab lyflam m ab le rob e.” (A p p . 5 . ) In h er o p p o sit ion to D ef en d an t’ s m o tio n f o r su m m a ryju d g m e n t, sh e a lleg e d th a t b a se d o n th e lay t e stim o n y , sh e w a s a b le t o “es t abl i s h a pr i m a f

aci e c a se f

o r th e u n re a so n a b le f

lam m a b ili tyo f

th e ro b e ,” w h ile di s cl ai m i ng anyi nt ent i on t o r el yon the doctr i ne of r es i ps a l oqui t or . (P l. ’s O p p . to D ef. ’s M ot . forSum m . J udg. , D . C t . D kt . # 24, 10. ) M os tr ece nt l y , i n herappea l br i ef, s he s t at es t hats he “br oughtt he w i t hi n act i on al l egi ng . . . s t r i ctl i abi l i t yi n t or tfora def ect i ve r obe. ” ( A t . B r . 6. ) N one of thes e des cr i pt i ons of hercl ai m di ffe r ent i at e betw een de s i gn and m anufa ctur i ng defe ct s , nordoes A ppel l antatanyt i m e cl ear l ydel i neat e the l aw on w hi ch she rel i es. 4 T he D i s t r i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1332. W e have appel l at e j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291. W e exe r ci s e pl enaryr evi ew overt he D istric t C o u rt’s e n tryo f su m m a ryju d g m e n t, vie w in g th e u n d e rly in g f a c ts a n d a ll r eas onabl e i nfer ence s t her efr om i n the l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o A ppel l ant , the non- m ovi ng p a rt y . S e e N o rf

o lk S o u th e rn R y . v . B a s e ll U S A In c ., 5 1 2 F .3 d 8 6 , 9 1 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ). Sum m aryj udgm enti s appr opr i at e onl yi f “ther e i s no genui ne i s s ue as t o anym at er i al fac t a nd . . . t he movi ng pa r t yi s e nt i t l e d t o j ud gmen ta s a mat t e rof l a w . ” Se e Fe d. R. Ci v. P. 5 6 (c ). S u m m a ryju d g m e n t m u st b e g ra n ted if th e p a rtyre sp o n d in g to th e m o tio n f a ils “ to m ake a s uffi ci ents how i ng on an es s ent i al el ementof hercas e w i t h r es pectt o w hi ch s he h as th e b u rde n o f p roo f.” C elotex C o rp. v. C atrett , 4 7 7 U . S . 3 1 7 , 3 2 3 (19 8 6 ). T h ro u g h o u t th e c o u rse o f th is a c tio n , A p p e llan t h a s a lleg e d tw o stric t li a b ili ty cl ai m s : a def

ect i ve pr oductcl ai m and a f ai l ur e t o w arn cl ai m . H ow ever , i thas notbeen cl earatanypoi ntdur i ng t hi s l i t i gat i on w hetherherdefe ct i ve pr oductcl ai m w as bas ed on a d e s i g n d e f

e c to ra m a n u f

a c tu r i n g d e f

e c tth e o r y. T h e D istri ct C o u rtp roc ee d ed u n d er a

15

t heoryof def

ect i ve des i gn, al t hough i t s anal y s i s att i m es confl at ed the l egal pr i nci pl es u n d e rw h i c h t h e t w o t yp e s o f c l a i m s a r e e v a l u a t e d . W e c o n c l u d e th a t , u n d e re i t h e rth e o r y, the e n tryo f su m m aryjud g m en t i n fa v o r of A p p ell ee w as p rop er. U nd er N ew Jer seyl aw , a def ect i ve p roduct cl ai m m ayproceed as fol l ow s: A m a n u f a c tu re r o r se ller o f

a p ro d u c t sh a ll b e liab le in a p ro d u c t li a b ili ty act i on onl yi f the cl ai m antpr oves bya pr eponder ance of the evi dence that th e p ro d u c t ca u sin g th e h a rm w a s n o t re a so n a b lyf it, su itab le o r sa f

e f o r its i ntended pu rpose becau se i t : a. dev i at ed from the d esi gn speci fi cat i on s, form ulae, or perform ance st and ards of t he m anu factureror fr om otherw i se i dent i cal uni t s m anufa ctur ed t o t he s ame m anufa ctur i ng s peci fi cat i ons or form ul ae, orb. fai l ed t o cont ai n adequa t e w arni ngs ori ns t ruct i ons , orc. w as d esig n ed in a d ef

ec ti v e m an n er. N . J . St at . A nn. § 2A : 58C - 2. T he D i s t r i ctC our tcons t rued A ppel l ant ’ s cl ai m as one of a des i gn defe ctand concl uded thats um m aryj udgm entw as pr operbeca us e A ppel l antdi d notas s ertan a ltern a tiv e d e sig n th e o ry , n o r d id sh e o f f e r te stim o n ysu f

f icie n t to ru le o u t o th e r p o ss ib le c a u se s o f th e in c id e n t. T h e D istric t C o u rt e m p h a siz e d A p p e llan t’s f a ilu re to su b m it expertt es t i m onyi n s uppor tof hercl ai m . A des i gn defe ctcl ai m pos i t s thatthe pr oduct w a s d e sig n e d in su c h a w a yth a t re n d e rs it “ n o t re a so n a b lyf it, su itab le o r sa f

e f o r its i nt ended purpos e. ” N . J . St at . A nn. § 2A : 58C - 2. T o pr evai l on s uch a c l ai m , “[a ] pl ai nt i ff m u st p ro v e e ith e r th a t th e p ro d u c t’s ris k s o u tw e ig h e d its u til ityo r th a t th e p ro d u c t co u ld have be en des i gned i n an al t ernat i ve manners o as t o m i ni m i ze orel i m i nat e the r i s k of harm . ” Lew i s v. A m . C y anami d C o. , 715 A . 2d 967, 980 ( N . J . 1998) ; s ee a l s o Sm i t h v. K el l erL adderC o. , 645 A . 2d 1269, 1271 ( N . J . Super . C t . A pp. D i v. 1994) . N ew J er s ey6

h a s a d o p ted a se v e n -f

a c to r “ risk -u til ity ” tes t to g a u g e w h e th e r a p ro d u c t w a s d e f e c tiv e ly des i gned. See J ohans en v. M aki t a U . S. A . , 607 A . 2d 637, 642 ( N . J . 1992) ; s ee a l s o Sm i th, 6 4 5 A .2 d a t 1 2 7 1 . A s th e D istric t C o u rt o b se rv e d , the e x iste n c e o f a d e sig n d e f

e c t is fr equent l ypr oven thr ough t he t es t i m onyof an e xper tw ho has exami ned the pr oductand offe r s an opi ni on on i t s des i gn. See, e. g. , D i l uzi o- G ul i no v. D ai m l erC hry s l erC orp. , 897 A .2 d 4 3 8 , 4 4 1 (N .J. S u p e r. C t. A p p . D iv . 2 0 0 6 ); R o c c o v . N e w Je rse yT ra n sit R a il O per at i ons , I nc. , 749 A . 2d 868, 879 ( N . J . Super . C t . A pp. D i v. 2000) . H er e, w i t h or w ith o u t ex p e rt tes tim o n y , A p p e llan t h a s n e ith e r o f f e re d e v id e n c e o f

a re a so n a b le a ltern a tiv e d e sig n f

o r th e ro b e , n o r h a s s h e m a d e a sh o w in g th a t th e risk s in v o lv e d in w e a rin g th e ro b e in q u e stio n o u tw e ig h its u til ityn o tw ith sta n d in g th e lac k o f a re a so n a b le al t ernat i ve des i gn. T hus , w hi l e A ppel l antm aybe corr ectthatN ew J er s eyl aw does not requir e pr oof of a r eas onabl e al t ernat i ve des i gn orexpertt es t i m onyt o pr ove a de s i gn d e f e c t , we a g r e e t h a t , t o t h e e x t e n tth a tAp p e l l a n ti n t e n d e d t o a l l e g e a d e s i g n d e f e c tc l a i m, s he has fai l ed t o carr yherbur den and, acc or di ngl y , thats um m aryj udgm entw as appr opr i at e. T o th e e x ten t A p p e llan t w a s a lleg in g a m a n u f a c tu rin g d e f

e c t cla im , w e sim ilarly c o n c l u d e t h a ts h e h a s n o to f f e r e d e v i d e n c e s u f

f i c i e n tt o s u s t a i n h e rb u r d e n o f p r o o f. To demonstr at e a manufac tur i ng defe ct , a pl ai nt i ff mustpr ove thatthe pr oductw as not m a n u f a c tu re d a c c o rd in g to its d e s ig n s p e c if ic a tio n s . S e e M yrl a k v . P o rt A u th . o f N .Y . & N . J . , 723 A . 2d 45, 52 ( N . J . 1999) . I n Scanl on v. G ener al M ot or s C orp. , 326 A . 2d 673A pl ai nt i ff mayal s o r el yon an i nfer ence thata pr oducti s defe ct i ve w her e the 2 i nci dentt hatharm ed the pl ai nt i ff w as ( 1) of a ki nd thator di nar i l yoccur s as a r es ul tof a pr oductdefe ct ; and ( 2) w as not , i n t he part i cul arcas e, s ol el ythe r es ul tof ca us es ot her t han a pr oductdefe ctexi s t i ng att he t i m e of s al e ordi s t r i but i on. See R es t at ement( T hi r d) o f T o rt s : P ro d u c ts L ia b ility § 3 (1 9 9 7 ), a s a d o p te d b yM yrl a k v . P o rt A u th . o f N .Y . & N .J., 7 2 3 A .2 d 4 5 , 5 5 -5 6 (N .J. 1 9 9 9 ). T h is te st h a s b e e n lab e led th e in d e ter m in a te pr oductdefe ctt es t , “bec aus e i t s us e i s l i m i t ed t o t hos e pr oductl i abi l i t ycas es i n w hi ch the pl ai nt i ff c annotpr ove a s peci fi c def ect . ” M yr l ak, 723 A . 2d at56. B eca us e A ppel l ant h e re a rg u e s th a t th e d e f e c t is th e ro b e ’s u n re a so n a b le f lam m a b ili ty , w e c o n c lu d e th a t th is testd o es n o t app lyan d , there fo re, do n o t con side r i t anyfu rth er. 7 (1 9 7 4 ), th e N e w Je rse yS u p re m e C o u rt se t o u t th re e m e a n s b yw h ich a p lain tiff c o u ld demonstr at e the exi s t ence of a manufac tur i ng defe ct : ( 1) di r ectevi dence thatthe def ect a ro se in th e h a n d s o f

th e m a n u f

a c tu re r; (2 ) c irc u m sta n tial e v id e n c e w h ich w o u ld p e rm it an i nfer ence t hata dange r ous condi t i on exi s t ed pr i ort o s al e; fori ns t ance , “the age and pr i orus age of

t he pr oducti n r el at i on t o i t s expec t ed l i fe s pan, dur abi l i t yand ef fec t i ve oper abi l i t yw i t houtm ai nt enanc e”; or( 3) bynegat i ng ot hercaus es of the fa i l ur e of the pr oductforw hi ch the def endantw oul d notbe r es pons i bl e, i n or dert o cr eat e an i nfer ence t hatt he def

ectw as at t r i but abl e t o t he manufactur er . See i d. at678- 79. D ependi ng on the 2 c o m p lex ityo f

th e p ro d u c t, a p lain tiff

m ig h t b e re q u ire d to p re se n t ex p e rt tes tim o n yin or dert o rul e outot herl i kel yexpl anat i ons forthe i nci dent . See i d. at679; s ee a l s o L auder v. T eane ck V ol unt eerA m bul ance C orps , 845 A . 2d 1271, 1277 ( N . J . Super . C t . A pp. D i v. 2 0 0 4 ) ( “ [ W ]h e re th e a lle g e d ly d e f e c tiv e p ro d u c t in v o lv e s a c o m p le x in s tru m e n ta lity, a pl ai nt i ff i s r equi r ed t o pr ovi de expe r tt es t i m ony . ”) . A s the Scanl on courtfur t hernot ed, “the mer e occ ur r ence of an a cci denti s nots uffi ci entt o es t abl i s h t hatthe pr oductw as not8

fi tforor di narypurpos es . ” I d. at677. A p p e lla n t c le a rl yd o e s n o t o f f e r a n yd ir e c t e v id e n c e o f a m a n u f a c tu ri n g d e f

e c t. W e agr ee w i t h t he D i s t r i ctC our tt hatA ppel l antfai l ed, thr ough expertt es t i m onyor ot herw i s e, t o negat e otherpos s i bl e ca us es of the i nci dent , s uch as thatthe w eather condi t i ons caus ed the mat ch t o expl ode, orthatthe mat ch cont ai ned an unus ual acc el er ant . R ather , A ppel l antcl ai m s thats he mayr el yon herow n t es t i m onyand thatof P h ili p W ilen sk yto d e m o n stra te th a t th e ro b e w a s d e f e c tiv e in th a t itw a s u n re a so n a b ly f la m m a b le . A pp el l ant s um m ari zes her t est i m on yas fol l ow s: Fi r s t , t he r obe expl oded upon cont actw i t h a mat ch. Second, fol l ow i ng the expl os i on, t he fi r e expe di t i ous l ys pr ead ove rM r s . T om s ’ bodyi n a mat t erof second s. T hir d, M r. W i l enskyob served the flam es l eaping from M rs . T om s ’ bodyt her ebyevi denci ng thatthe fl ames w er e more than a mer e fi r e, but , r ather , w er e burni ng atan i ncr eas ed r at e. Four t h, the r obe di s i nt egr at ed in to a lm o s t n o th in g le a v in g littl e o f th e ro b e le f

t f o r t e s tin g . ( A t . B r . 14. ) A ppel l antr el i es on fi ve ca s es t o s uppor theras s ert i on thats he ca n pr ove her cl ai m s ol el yt hr ough l ayevi dence demonstr at i ng the exi s t ence of a de fec ti n t he r obe. See H ol l i s t erv. D ayt on H uds on C orp. , 201 F. 3d 731 ( 6th C i r . 2000) ; W i l s on v. B r adl ees of N ew E ngl and, I nc. , 96 F. 3d 552 ( 1s tC i r . 1996) ; H ow ar d v. M cC r oryC orp. , 601 F. 2d 133 ( 4t h C i r . 1979) ; L aG or ga v. K r ogerC o. , 275 F. Supp. 373 ( W . D . Pa. 1967) , aff’ d, 407 F .2 d 6 7 1 (3 d C ir . 1 9 6 9 ); D iM a s o v . W ie b o ld t S to re s , In c ., 3 4 7 N .E . 2 d 4 6 6 (I ll. A p p . C t. 1 9 7 6 ). W h ile w e d o n o t q u a rre l w ith A p p e llan t’s a rg u m e n t th a t sh e is n o t r equi r ed to p r e s e n te x p e r tt e s t i mo n yt o d e mo n s tr a t e th a tth e r o b e wa s u n r e a s o n a b l yf l a mm a b l e , we9

a g re e w ith th e D istric t C o u rt th a t A p p e llan t’s re lian c e o n th e se c a se s f o r su p p o rt is m isp lac e d . T h e f

a c ts p re se n ted b yA p p e llan t d if f e r in sig n if

ica n t re sp e c ts f

ro m th o se in H o w ard an d L aG o rga . S ee H o w ard , 6 0 1 F . 2 d at 13 8 (“W h en firstsee n , the f lam es w ere s hoot i ng a footoverB obby ’ s head a nd B obbyl ooked much l i ke a ba l l of fi r e. Such evi dence w oul d i ndi cat e thatt he cl ot hi ng w orn byB obbyi gni t ed qui ckl yand burned r api dl yw i t h i nt ens i t y . ”) ; L aG or ga, 275 F. Supp. at377- 78 ( r eci t i ng t es t i m onythat“[y ] ou co u ld se e f

lam es sh o o ti n g o u t th e b ac k o f th e jac k et, ” tha t sev era l peo p le tri ed b u t w ere unabl e t o ext i ngui s h t he fi r e, thata r et i r ed fi r efi ght ers aw the chi l d “comi ng dow n t he stre e t f u ll b laz e , u p o v e r h is h e a d , jus t li k e a b a ll o f f ire c o m in g d o w n ” a n d th a t in h is e x p e ri e n c e a s a f

ir e f ig h te r, “ ‘n o c lo th th a t [ h e h a d ] s e e n b u rn e d lik e th a t’ ” ). A ppel l antcl ai m s t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our tfai l ed t o addr es s the “f act s ” that“( 1) t he fi r e s pr ead a bnor m al l yqui ckl yoverM r s . T om s ’ r obe and body ; ( 2) M r . W i l ens kys aw t he f lam e s le a p f

ro m M rs. T o m s’ h e a d ; an d (3 ) th e f ire b u rn e d so th o ro u g h lyth a t n e a rly n o thing rem aine d o f th e ro b e e x ce p t disi n tegra ted c h arred rem ains . ” (A t. B r. 1 9 . ) C ont r aryt o A ppel l ant ’ s s ugges t i ons , hert es t i m onydoes notes t abl i s h a t i m e fr ame fort he fire, no r th at i t bu rne d “a b n o rm all yq u ickly ” o r ha d u n u su al bu rnin g ch ara cterist ics. In fac t , M r . W i l ens ky ’ s t es t i m onyes t abl i s hes thathe as s i s t ed M r s . T om s ’ i n r emovi ng the cl ot hi ng fr om herbody , br oughtheri ns i de, cal l ed 911, and r eturned out s i de t o as s i s tt he pol i ce of fi ceri n put t i ng outt he fi r e. ( A pp. 197- 99, 257- 59. ) T he fa ctthatthe r obe had nearl ybu rned i t sel f ou tbyt he ti m e al l of these even t s had tr anspir ed d oes no test abli sh10

th a t th e ro b e w a s u n u su a llyf lam m a b le. W h ile w e a g re e w ith A p p e llan t th a t u n d e r c e rta in ci rcum st ances, l ayt est i m on ym aybe suf fi ci ent t o m ake o ut s uch a cl ai m , un der these ci r cumst ance s i tw as not . A ccor di ngl y , w e w i l l aff i r m the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s entr yof s u mma r yj u d g me n to n Ap p e l l a n t ’ s ma n u f a c tu r i n g d e f

e c tc l a i m. A p p e llan t als o a lleg e d th a t th e ro b e f a iled to c o n tain a n a d e q u a te w a rn in g o f its unr eas onabl e fl amm abi l i t y . T he s t atut e def i nes an “[ a] dequat e pr oductw arni ng or i ns t ruct i on” as “one thata r eas onabl yprudentper s on i n t he s ame ors i m i l arci r cumst ance s w o u ld h a v e p ro v id e d w ith re sp e c t to th e d a n g e r a n d th a t co m m u n ica tes a d e q u a te i nform at i on on t he dange r s and s afe us e of the pr oduct , t aki ng i nt o acc ountthe char act er i s t i cs of, and the or di naryknow l edge c om m on t o, the per s ons byw hom the pr oducti s i nt ended t o be us ed . . . . ” N . J . St at . A nn. § 2A : 58- C - 4. A ppel l ants uppor t s herfai l ur e t o w arn cl ai m w i t h t he s ame cas es as herpr oduct defe ctcl ai m , pos i t i ng t hatherl ayt es t i m onyi s s uffi ci entt o es t abl i s h t hatthe r obe w as unr eas onabl yfl amm abl e and thati tther efor e s houl d have c ont ai ned a w arni ng. I n a fai l ur e t o w arn cl ai m , “the def ecti s the abs ence of a w arni ng t o uns us pect i ng us er s that t he pr oductcan pot ent i al l ycaus e i nj ury . ” C offman v. K eene C orp. , 628 A . 2d 710, 716 (N . J. 1 9 9 3 ); C am p o s v . F ir esto n e T ir e & R u b b er C o . , 4 8 5 A . 2 d 3 0 5 , 3 0 8 (N . J. 1 9 8 4 ), s u p e rs e d e d b ys ta tu te o n o th e r g ro u n d s a s s ta te d in D e w e yv . R .J . R e yn o ld s T o b a c c o C o ., 577 A . 2d 1239 ( N . J . 1990) ( expl ai ni ng that , underN ew J er s eyl aw , m anufa ctur er s have a dut yt o w arn “for es eea bl e us er s of al l hi dden orl at entdanger s thatw oul d ar i s e outof a11

r eas onabl yant i ci pat ed us e of [ t hei r ] pr oduct [s ] ”) . T hus , befor e r eac hi ng the ques t i on of w hethert he pr oductcont ai ned an a dequat e w arni ng, pl ai nt i ff mustfi r s tes t abl i s h t hat t her e w as a l at entdangerof w hi ch the manufactur erhad a dutyt o w arn. See M athew s v. U niver si t yL oft C o. , 90 3 A . 2d 11 20 , 11 25 (N . J. S up er. C t . A pp . D i v. 20 06 ); see al so M agis t ri ni v. O ne H ou r M art i nizi ng D ryC l eaning, 10 9 F . S up p. 2d 30 6, 31 1 (D . N . J. 2 0 0 0 ) (“ In a f

a ilu re to w a rn c a se , to s h o w th a t a p ro d u c t is d e f e c tiv e , an d u lti m a telyto es t abl i s h pr oduct - defe ctcaus at i on, t he pl ai nt i ff mustfi r s tes t abl i s h t hatdefe ndanthad a dut yt o w arn. ”) ; J ames v. B es s emerPr oces s i ng C o. , I nc. , 714 A . 2d 898, 908 ( N . J . 1998) (“I nit i al l y , t he p l ai nti ff m ustest abli sh t hat the d efen dan thad a du t yt o w arn. T o est abli sh su c h a d u ty , the p lain tiff m u st s a tisf

y‘a v e rylo w th re sh o ld o f p ro o f in o rd e r to im p u te to a manufactur ers uffi ci entknow l edge t o t r i ggerthe dutyt o pr ovi de a w arni ng of the harm ful eff

ect s of i t s pr oduct . ’ ”) ; M i chal ko v. C ooke C ol or& C hem C orp, 451 A . 2d 179, 187 ( N . J . 1982) ( hol di ng t hat“a manufac tur eri s undera dutyt o w arn ow ner s and for es eea bl e us er s of the dange r s of us i ng a part i cul arm achi ne i f, w i t houts uch a w arni ng, t he machi ne i s notr eas onabl ys afe ”) . B eca us e A ppel l antfai l ed t o offe revi dence s uffi ci entt o demonstr at e thatherr obe w as exce s s i vel yfl amm abl e, s he has not demonstr at ed thatA ppel l ee ha d a dutyt o w arn herof s uch a r i s k. A ccor di ngl y , w e agr ee w i t h t he D i s t r i ctC our tt hats um m aryj udgm enti n favorof A ppel l ee on thi s cl ai m w as p rop er.B a se d o n th e f

o re g o in g , w e w ill a f

f irm th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e D istric t C o u rt.