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

liabilityappealtrialtestimonyregulationstrict liabilityappellantjury instructions

liabilitytrialstrict liabilityappellantappellee

Related Cases

Howard v. Faberge, Inc., 679 S.W.2d 644, 46 A.L.R.4th 1185

Facts

In 1976, the appellant suffered upper body burns allegedly due to the flammability of Brut 33 Splash-On Lotion, which he had poured over his hands and chest. According to the appellant, the Brut lotion ignited when he accidentally dropped a match into his waistband. The appellant brought a strict liability suit against the manufacturer, claiming that the product lacked a warning indicating its flammability. The jury found against the appellant, leading to the appeal.

In 1976, the appellant suffered upper body burns allegedly due to the flammability of Brut 33 Splash-On Lotion, which he had poured over his hands and chest. According to the appellant, the Brut lotion ignited when the appellant accidently dropped a match into his waistband. The appellant brought a strict liability suit against the appellee, alleging that the product lacked a warning indicating the product's flammability.

Issue

The main legal issues included whether the trial court erred in excluding evidence of post-accident warnings and admitting evidence regarding the absence of governmental standards for flammability of cosmetics.

Rule

The court applied the principle that the admission or exclusion of evidence constitutes reversible error if it is determined that the error was harmful and probably caused an improper judgment.

Generally, in order for the admission or exclusion of evidence to constitute reversible error, the reviewing court must determine that error occurred, and that the error was harmful and calculated to cause, and probably did cause, the rendition of an improper judgment.

Analysis

The court found that the exclusion of post-accident warnings was an error that likely affected the jury's decision, as it was relevant to the issue of whether the product was unreasonably dangerous without a warning. Additionally, the admission of testimony regarding the absence of governmental standards was deemed prejudicial, as it could mislead the jury into thinking that the lack of regulation indicated the product's safety.

After reviewing the entire record of the instant case, we find that the exclusion of the post-accident warnings was error, and was calculated to and probably did cause the rendition of an improper judgment.

Conclusion

The appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for a new trial due to the identified errors in evidentiary rulings and jury instructions.

We reverse and remand.

Who won?

The manufacturer prevailed in the initial trial, but the appellate court's decision reversed this outcome due to errors in the trial process.

The jury found against the appellant, and judgment was entered for the appellee.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Simmons v. Napier, 626 Fed.Appx. 129, 326 Ed. Law Rep. 655

Park Club, Inc. v. Resolution Trust Corp., 967 F.2d 1053, 23 Fed.R.Serv.3d 490

Gilberg v. Barbieri, 53 N.Y.2d 285, 423 N.E.2d 807, 441 N.Y.S.2d 49

Eyre v. McDonough Power Equipment, Inc., 755 F.2d 416

Williams v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc., 728 F.2d 730, 38 Fed.R.Serv.2d 1673