Opinion ID: 2217286
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Feasibility of Reducing the Hazard

Text: As previously indicated, plaintiffs introduced a large amount of evidence showing that flame retardant products could have been applied to cotton flannelette well before Riegel manufactured the flannelette used in Lee Ann's pajamas. Of course, there was contrary evidence presented on this point by Riegel's witnesses, but plaintiffs' experts provided credible evidence. However, even if such evidence had not been sufficient, there was sufficient evidence from which the jury could conclude that Riegel was strictly liable for its failure to warn. Under Minnesota law, a manufacturer has a duty to warn users of its products of all dangers associated with those products of which it has actual or constructive knowledge. Failure to provide such warnings will render the product unreasonably dangerous and will subject the manufacturer to liability for damages under strict liability in tort. Karjala v. Johns-Manville Products Corp., 523 F.2d 155, 158 (8th Cir. 1975); see Magnuson v. Rupp Manufacturing, Inc., 285 Minn. 32, 38, 171 N.W.2d 201, 205 (1969). The high flammability of Riegel's cotton flannelette is itself evidence of its duty in this regard. Furthermore, there was substantial evidence that Riegel was uniquely aware of these flammable characteristics. Riegel did not seriously argue at trial that it was unable to provide a warning to the consumer, nor could it because plaintiffs introduced evidence that Riegel was able to send advertising information concerning the positive attributes of its product through the chain of commerce. Riegel mainly argued at trial and argues here on appeal that it was not feasible to warn consumers because such a warning would stigmatize its product, thereby seemingly admitting that it was protecting the marketing of a product consumers might deem unreasonably hazardous.