Opinion ID: 2349410
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Misuse of Product

Text: Appellant claims reversible error because the trial court gave an instruction on misuse of product as a possible defense to the strict liability claim. At trial, Judge Miller gave the following instruction to the jury: With respect to strict liability, i[n] order for you to find in favor of the plaintiffs, you must find by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendants manufactured a defective product which was unreasonably dangerous to the consumer and that the defect was the proximate cause of plaintiff's injuries. And that the defendant has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the plaintiff misused the product. So in the strict liability theory, it is for the plaintiff to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendants manufactured a defective product, which was unreasonably dangerous and that the defect was a proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries. On the other hand, it would be for the defendant, if they established  if the plaintiff established what I just mentioned, it would be the burden of the defendant to show that the defendant misused the product.       On a strict liability theory, you must find by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant manufactured a defective product, which was unreasonably dangerous to the consumer and that the defect proximately caused the plaintiff's injuries. That is the burden of the plaintiff. The burden is then upon the defendant to show that the plaintiff misused that product. So if the plaintiff meets her burden of [showing] the strict liability theory, you then look as to whether the defendant might have shown a misuse of the product. Appellant argues that the evidence adduced at trial may be consistent with momentary inattention or carelessness on the part of Appellant, but is inconsistent with affirmative misconduct or use of the nightgown for an abnormal purpose. Both defendants contend there was no error in the jury instruction on misuse. Sherne claims that the trial court and the Court of Special Appeals found evidence in the record that the manner in which [plaintiff] used her nightgown may not have been a manner foreseeable by the manufacturer and therefore the misuse instruction to the jury was warranted. Similarly, Cone Mills argues that misuse of the nightgown by the plaintiff became a jury issue based on evidence of the plaintiff's use of the gown in effect draping it over a hot burner for an appreciable period of time, [which] cannot seriously be considered a reasonably foreseeable manner of use. This Court, in Phipps v. General Motors Corp., 278 Md. 337, 363 A.2d 955 (1976) first applied the doctrine of strict liability in tort as expressed in the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402 A. [2] Under § 402 A, the seller will be liable if the product is in a defective condition, that is in a condition not contemplated by the ultimate consumer, and unreasonably dangerous, that is dangerous to an extent beyond that which would be contemplated by the ordinary consumer who purchases it, with ordinary knowledge common to the community as to its characteristics. Id. at 344, 363 A.2d 955. In Phipps, we noted: Under § 402 A, various defenses are still available to the seller in an action based on strict liability in tort. These defenses are set forth and explained in the official comments following § 402 A. For example, the seller is not liable where injury results from abnormal handling or use of the product (Comment h), where mishandling or alteration after delivery of the product renders it unsafe (Comment g), or if warnings or instructions supplied with the product are disregarded by the consumer where, if used in accordance with these warnings, the product would be safe (Comment j). Id. at 346, 363 A.2d 955. [3] Comment h to § 402 A provides a basis for the misuse defense. It states: A product is not in a defective condition when it is safe for normal handling and consumption. If the injury results from abnormal handling, as where a bottled beverage is knocked against a radiator to remove the cap; or from abnormal preparation for use, as where too much salt is added to food; or from abnormal consumption, as where a child eats too much candy and is made ill, the seller is not liable. Most jurisdictions have adopted the Restatement view that misuse or abnormal use is a factor in a strict liability action. [4] The courts, however, are split on the question of whether the issue of misuse properly arises as a part of a plaintiff's case, or is an affirmative defense. Some courts have referred to misuse as an affirmative defense or part of the defendant's burden of proof. Davidson v. Stanadyne, Inc., 718 F.2d 1334 (5th Cir.1983) (applying the law of Texas); Beacham v. Lee-Norse, 714 F.2d 1010 (10th Cir.1983) (applying the law of Utah); Wood v. Stihl, Inc., 705 F.2d 1101 (9th Cir.1983) (applying the law of Washington); Noel v. S.S. Kresge Co., 669 F.2d 1150 (6th Cir.1982) (applying the law of Ohio); Harville v. Anchor-Wate Co., 663 F.2d 598 (5th Cir.1981) (applying the law of Texas); Hammond v. McDonough Power Equipment, Inc., 436 So.2d 842 (Ala. 1983); Nelson v. Caterpillar Tractor Co., 694 P.2d 867 (Colo.Ct.App. 1984); Uptain v. Huntington Lab, Inc., 685 P.2d 218 (Colo.Ct.App. 1984); Matthews v. F.M.C. Corp., 190 Conn. 700, 462 A.2d 376 (1983); Gangi v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 33 Conn.Sup. 81, 360 A.2d 907 (1976); Reeser v. Boats Unlimited, Inc., 432 So.2d 1346 (Fla.App. 1983); McBride v. Ford Motor Co., 105 Idaho 753, 673 P.2d 55 (1983); Hancock v. Paccar, Inc., 204 Neb. 468, 283 N.W.2d 25 (1979); Marchese v. Warner Communications, Inc., 100 N.M. 313, 670 P.2d 113 (1983); Messler v. Simmons Gun Specialties, Inc., 687 P.2d 121 (Okl. 1984); Kirkland v. General Motors Corp., 521 P.2d 1353 (Okl. 1974); Allen v. Heil Co., 285 Or. 109, 589 P.2d 1120 (1979); Norman v. Fisher Marine Inc., 672 S.W.2d 414 (Tenn. App. 1984); General Motors Corp. v. Hopkins, 548 S.W.2d 344 (Tex. 1977); Mulherin v. Ingersoll-Rand Co., 628 P.2d 1301 (Utah 1981); Smith v. Sturm, Ruger & Co., Inc., 39 Wash. App. 740, 695 P.2d 600 (1985); Jackson v. Standard Oil Co. of California, 8 Wash. App. 83, 505 P.2d 139 (1972). The recent trend in a number of courts has been to consider the question of misuse as a part of the plaintiff's case, and as being directly related to the issues of defectiveness, or of proximate cause, or both. Schwartz v. American Honda Co., Inc., 710 F.2d 378 (7th Cir.1983) (applying the law of Illinois); McGowne v. Challenge-Cook Bros., Inc., 672 F.2d 652, 661 n. 2 (8th Cir.1982) (applying the law of Missouri); Amburgery v. Holan Division of Ohio Brass Co., 124 Ariz. 531, 606 P.2d 21, 22 (1980); Illinois State Trust Co. v. Walker Mfg. Co., 73 Ill. App.3d 585, 29 Ill.Dec. 513, 392 N.E.2d 70, 73 (1979); Henkel v. R. and S. Bottling Co., 323 N.W.2d 185, 191 (Iowa 1982); Hughes v. Magic Chef, Inc., 288 N.W.2d 542, 546 (Iowa 1980); Early-Gray, Inc. v. Walters, 294 So.2d 181, 186 (Miss. 1974); Rogers v. Toro Mfg. Co., 522 S.W.2d 632, 637 (Mo. App. 1975); Olson v. A.W. Chesterton Co., 256 N.W.2d 530, 535 (N.D. 1977). Commentators have agreed. See L. Frumer & M. Friedman, Products Liability § 15.01 (1984); J. Dooley, Modern Tort Law § 32.79 (1983 & Cum.Supp. 1984); Noel, Defective Products: Abnormal Use, Contributory Negligence, and Assumption of Risk, 25 Vand.L.Rev. 93, 96 (1972). Other courts have referred to the defense of misuse without specifying whether it is an affirmative defense, or evidence that tends to negate the plaintiff's case. See for example Young v. Up-Right Scaffolds, Inc., 637 F.2d 810 (D.C. Cir.1980). The problem of understanding the issue of misuse in strict liability cases is further compounded by the absence of agreement as to the meaning of the word. Misuse has been defined as: a use not reasonably foreseeable, Payne v. Soft Sheen Products, Inc., 486 A.2d 712, 725 (D.C. 1985); Ford Motor Company v. Matthews, 291 So.2d 169, 174 (Miss. 1974); a use of the product in a manner which defendant could not reasonably foresee, McGowne v. Challenge-Cook Bros., Inc., 672 F.2d 652, 661 (8th Cir.1982); Hughes v. Magic Chef, Inc., 288 N.W.2d 542, 545 (Iowa 1980); a use of a product where it is handled in a way which the manufacturer could not have reasonably foreseen or expected in the normal and intended use of the product and the plaintiff could foresee an injury as the result of the unintended use, Harville v. Anchor-Wate Co., 663 F.2d 598, 602-03 (1981) (applying the law of Texas); General Motors Corp. v. Hopkins, 548 S.W.2d 344, 348-52 (Tex. 1977); a use or handling so unusual that the average consumer could not reasonably expect the product to be designed and manufactured to withstand it  a use which the seller, therefore, need not anticipate and provide for, Findlay v. Copeland Lumber Co., 265 Or. 300, 509 P.2d 28, 31 (1973); use of the product which constitutes wilful or reckless misconduct or an invitation of injury, Gangi v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 33 Conn.Sup. 81, 360 A.2d 907, 909 (1976). The Fifth Circuit, in Jones v. Menard, 559 F.2d 1282, 1285 n. 4 (5th Cir.1977) (applying the law of Louisiana), defined misuse in the context of the three types of products cases. That court said, [i]n inadequate warning cases misuse means that the seller had no duty to warn against unforeseeable uses of its products, while in design cases misuse means that the manufacturer had no duty to design a product so as to prevent injuries arising from unforeseeable uses of that product.... In defective manufacture cases, however, misuse means that the injury was not caused by some inherent defect in the product but by the consumer's abnormal use of it.... [5] It has been suggested that misuse means any use not intended by the manufacturer, but this is too narrow and fails to take into account a variety of uses reasonably foreseeable although not subjectively intended. It has also been suggested that virtually anything is possible, and thus arguably foreseeable, so that foreseeability as a test is too broad. We conclude, as have most courts which have considered the issue, that reasonable foreseeability is the appropriate test, and thus a seller is required to provide a product that is not unreasonably dangerous when used for a purpose and in a manner that is reasonably foreseeable. [6] If a product is unreasonably dangerous for such use it is defective within the meaning of § 402 A of the Restatement, and if that defect is a cause of damage the seller will be responsible. On the other hand, if the product is not unreasonably dangerous when used for a purpose and in a manner that is reasonably foreseeable, it simply is not defective, and the seller will not be liable. [7] Misuse of a product may also bar recovery where the misuse is the sole proximate cause of damage, or where it is the intervening or superseding cause. [8] For example, a high speed electric drill may be defective because a manufacturing defect causes it to short circuit and produce a shock during normal usage. A plaintiff who attaches a brush to that drill and in attempting to clean his teeth suffers injury to his mouth from the high speed of the brush will lose because his misuse is the sole cause of his misfortune, and the defect in the drill is not in any way related to the harm. [9] Misuse may also embrace the concept of mishandling. As Comment g of § 402 A states the seller is not liable when he delivers the product in a safe condition, and subsequent mishandling ... make[s] it harmful by the time it is consumed. The burden of proof is upon the plaintiff to show that the product was in a defective condition when it left the hands of the seller. From what we have said it is apparent that questions of misuse of the product are involved in the determination of whether the product was defective, and whether a defect was the proximate cause of the injury. Because defectiveness and causation are elements which must be proved by the plaintiff, we conclude that misuse is not an affirmative defense. Misuse, therefore, is a defense only in the sense that proof of misuse negates one or more essential elements of a plaintiff's case, and may thereby defeat recovery. In contrast, assumption of risk is an affirmative defense, and where properly raised by the pleadings, [10] may be an issue in a strict liability case. As the Court of Special Appeals stated in Sheehan v. Anthony Pools, 50 Md. App. 614, 626 n. 11, 440 A.2d 1085 (1982), aff'd, 295 Md. 285, 455 A.2d 434 (1983) (Part III adopted in full), The three subjective elements that the defendant must show are: 1) the plaintiff actually knew and appreciated the particular risk or danger created by the defect; 2) the plaintiff voluntarily encountered the risk while realizing the danger; and 3) the plaintiff's decision to encounter the known risk was unreasonable. [11] To conclude our general discussion of defenses we repeat our earlier holding that contributory negligence is not a defense in an action of strict liability in tort. Anthony Pools v. Sheehan, supra, 295 Md. at 299, 455 A.2d 434. Conduct which operates to defeat recovery may in fact be negligent, but confusion will be avoided if it is remembered that a plaintiff is barred only because such conduct constitutes misuse or assumption of risk, and not because it constitutes contributory negligence. [12] Applying these principles to the facts of this case, we conclude the evidence was insufficient to generate an issue of misuse, and that the trial judge erred in allowing the jury to consider misuse of the product as a possible bar to recovery. Clearly, and concededly, Appellant was using the nightgown for a reasonably foreseeable purpose. We conclude that her manner of use of the nightgown, though possibly careless, was reasonably foreseeable as a matter of law. It certainly may be foreseen that wearing apparel, such as nightgowns and robes, will occasionally be worn inside out. It is also foreseeable that a loosely fitting gown will come into contact with sources of ignition in the environment where it may be expected to be worn, and particularly when worn in the kitchen and near a stove. Momentary inattention or carelessness on the part of the user, while it may constitute contributory negligence, does not add up to misuse of the product under these circumstances. Plaintiff also alleges error because the trial court refused to instruct the jury that contributory negligence is not a defense to a strict liability action. A plaintiff in a products liability case may plead alternative causes of action, and if the plaintiff alleges negligence in addition to strict liability, a defendant may be entitled to instructions on contributory negligence, assumption of risk, and misuse. A jury could easily misapply a contributory negligence defense to a strict liability action [13] and care must be taken to explain the law applicable to each cause of action. In Sheehan v. Anthony Pools, supra, 50 Md. App. at 623, 440 A.2d 1085, the Court of Special Appeals noted that jury instructions were silent as to the manner in which an injured plaintiff had used a diving board. The court said that there is substance to the [plaintiff's] claim that the jury was left without guidance on a point of critical importance, i.e., the type of conduct on the part of the consumer in the use of the product which could or could not afford a valid defense to the seller.... Id. The court concluded an instruction should have been granted that [the plaintiff's] inadvertent or careless use of the [product] would not bar his recovery. Id. at 626, 440 A.2d 1085. When theories of negligence and strict liability in tort are being presented to a jury, and the defense of contributory negligence is properly before the jury, a trial judge may well find it helpful to specifically instruct the jury that contributory negligence is not a defense to the strict liability action. In some cases, however, where the same conduct may conceivably constitute both contributory negligence and misuse of a product, a negative instruction may not be the best approach, and the trial judge may find that a careful explanation of each cause of action and any defenses applicable thereto is preferable. We therefore decline to adopt a per se rule relating to the granting of a negative instruction where both causes of action are present, [14] preferring instead the flexible approach of Md. Rule 2-520(c): The court may instruct the jury, orally or in writing or both, by granting requested instructions, by giving instructions of its own, or by combining any of these methods. The court need not grant a requested instruction if the matter is fairly covered by instructions actually given.