Opinion ID: 1479434
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Negligence or Strict Liability

Text: Even including the letter and answers to all interrogatories, sufficient evidence did not exist from which the jury could have found or reasonably inferred negligence in the design, manufacture, testing, or inspection of the liquid soap, nor was there sufficient evidence of a defect. Ritter v. Narragansett Electric Company, 109 R.I. 176, 283 A.2d 255 (1971). In Ritter we held that one can only be liable in negligence if the plaintiff has met his burden of introducing credible evidence that the defendant knew, or had reason to know, of a defective design or that he was negligent in failing to test or inspect the product prior to sale. Furthermore, he must prove that this defect proximately caused the injury. Id. at 182-83, 283 A.2d at 259. In a strict liability action, the plaintiff has the burden of proving a defect in the design or manufacture that makes the product unsafe for its intended use, and also that the plaintiff's injury was proximately caused by this defect. Id. at 190-91, 283 A.2d at 262; see also Salk v. Alpine Ski Shop Inc., 115 R.I. 309, 314-15, 342 A.2d 622, 626 (1975). Introducing probative circumstantial evidence that may create inferences of fact not otherwise subject to direct proof, and which could prove the defect and the causal connection is entirely consonant with the theory of strict liability. The inferences drawn from the evidence, however, may not rely upon mere conjecture or speculation to establish essential elements of this case. Carlson v. American Safety Equipment, 528 F.2d 384, 386 (1st Cir.1976); Geremia v. Benny's Inc., 119 R.I. 868, 872-73, 383 A.2d 1332, 1334 (1978). The plaintiff in the case at bar has failed to meet her burdens of proof in both negligence and strict liability. The evidence which she presented does not sufficiently prove that the product was unreasonably dangerous and that its alleged defect caused her injury. She has merely shown that the use of the product resulted in injury, but she has not proved the necessary proximate relationship between either the defect and the injury or between the negligence and the injury. Although we do permit inferences of fact to be drawn from circumstantial evidence, we believe that to permit the jurors to infer from the circumstantial evidence in this case that there had to be something in the product that caused the injury is to permit them to engage in mere speculation. For similar reasons, we also find that the trial justice was correct in granting a directed verdict on the count of failure to warn in both negligence and strict liability. In negligence, the defendant only has a duty to warn if he had reason to know about the product's dangerous propensities which caused plaintiff's injuries. Scittarelli v. Providence Gas Co., R.I., 415 A.2d 1040, 1043 (1980). Under strict liability, a seller need only warn of those dangers that are reasonably foreseeable. If he does not provide such a warning, then the product is rendered defective. Borel v. Fibreboard Paper Products Corp., 493 F.2d 1076, 1088-89 (5th Cir.1973); see Restatement (Second) Torts § 402(A), comment j at 353 (1965). Plaintiff has not sufficiently proved that there was something in Nature Shower which caused her rash. Without more evidence establishing the foreseeability of the dangerous condition and the nexus between this condition and the injury, we find one cannot reasonably infer that defendant had a duty to warn.