Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiffnegligenceliabilityappealverdictstrict liability
damagesnegligenceliabilityappealtrialverdictstrict liability

Related Cases

Pavelic & LeFlore v. Marvel Entertainment Group, 493 U.S. 120, 110 S.Ct. 456, 107 L.Ed.2d 438, 58 USLW 4038, 15 Fed.R.Serv.3d 1, RICO Bus.Disp.Guide 7378
View Case »
In re Fountain, 74 Cal.App.3d 715, 141 Cal.Rptr. 654
View Case »
In re Ruffalo, 390 U.S. 544, 88 S.Ct. 1222, 20 L.Ed.2d 117, 43 O.O.2d 459
View Case »
In re Heckmann Corp. Securities Litigation, 869 F.Supp.2d 519, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 96,339
View Case »
S.E.C. v. Rocklage, 470 F.3d 1, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 94,121
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Prather v. Upjohn Co., 797 F.2d 923, Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 11,107

Facts

The Prathers alleged that Upjohn manufactured and sold polyurethane foam containing TDI, which Richard Prather was required to use while working as a civilian aircraft mechanic at Tyndall Air Force Base. While using a soldering gun to shape the foam, Prather was exposed to harmful smoke and gases, leading to claims of permanent lung damage. Upjohn had provided warnings about the hazards of burning the foam to the Air Force, but Prather was never directly informed of these risks.

The evidence at trial showed that Upjohn sold its polyurethane foam exclusively to knowledgeable industrial consumers. The warnings Upjohn issued concerning the potential hazards of burning the foam were therefore designed accordingly.

Issue

Did the district court err in granting a directed verdict on the issue of strict liability and presenting the case to the jury solely under a negligence theory?

The sole issue presented on appeal is whether the district court erred in presenting the case to the jury only under a negligence theory.

Rule

Under Florida law, to establish a strict liability claim, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the product was in a defective and unreasonably dangerous condition, and that there is a proximate causal connection between that condition and the user's injuries.

Under Florida law, to hold Upjohn liable on the theory of strict liability, the Prathers were required to establish Upjohn's 'relationship to the product in question, the defect and unreasonably dangerous condition of the product, and the existence of the proximate causal connection between such condition and the user's injuries or damages.'

Analysis

The court found that the Prathers did not provide sufficient evidence to support their strict liability claim, as they failed to demonstrate that Upjohn's polyurethane foam was in a defective and unreasonably dangerous condition. The court noted that the warnings provided by Upjohn were adequate and that the Air Force had independent knowledge of the hazards associated with burning the foam. Therefore, the court concluded that a reasonable jury could not find the foam defective based on the evidence presented.

Here, the Prathers failed to present sufficient evidence to support their strict liability claim. The Prathers' chief complaint is that a reasonable jury could have found Upjohn's polyurethane foam to be defective because Richard Prather, the ultimate user, was never warned of the potential hazards involved in burning the foam.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the directed verdict on the issue of strict liability was proper due to the lack of evidence supporting the claim.

The district court's directed verdict on the issue of strict liability is AFFIRMED.

Who won?

Upjohn Company prevailed in the case because the court found that the Prathers failed to establish that the polyurethane foam was defective or unreasonably dangerous, and that Upjohn had provided adequate warnings regarding the product's hazards.

In agreeing that the directed verdict was indeed proper, we need not decide whether the Florida Supreme Court would treat negligence and strict liability as identical theories in the context of this case.

You must be