Even if the instructions involving negligent post-sale duty to warn were incorrect as a matter of Maine law, the finding of liability on the strict liability theory would be sufficient to support the judgment. Rival maintains the issue must nevertheless be reached. It argues that certain evidence was admitted at trial in support of the plaintiff's theory that there had been a negligent failure to warn and that this evidence was both prejudicial and irrelevant to any of the other legal theories advanced by plaintiff. Although the sequence of the placement of the warning tags and the sale of the appliance is unknown, the defendant never challenged this evidentiary ruling as to the pre-sale duty to warn. The point is waived.
Similar products produced by other companies did have a locking lid.
The refusal of UL to list the product is particularly telling. We think it unlikely that the evidence of cord tags placed on the Model 3206 affected the liability determination. Evidence of Other Accidents Plaintiff put in evidence of eight accidents in which young children sustained burns after coming into contact with the heated contents of a Rival potpourri pot. Defendant objected to the introduction of this evidence, but the trial court overruled the objection. Review is for abuse of discretion.