Ayers v. Johnson & Johnson Baby Products Co.
818 P.2d 1337, 117 Wash. 2d 747 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Washington's Product Liability Act (RCW 7.72.030(1)(b)), a manufacturer is strictly liable for harm proximately caused by inadequate warnings for dangers existing at the time of manufacture, and foreseeability of the specific harm is not an element of such a claim.
Facts:
- In April 1985, 15-month-old David Ayers was playing at home when he found an open purse belonging to his 13-year-old sister, Laurie, which contained an unmarked container filled with Johnson & Johnson's baby oil.
- David began to drink the oil, and his mother, Mrs. Ayers, yelled at him to stop, causing him to gasp and inhale some of the oil into his lungs.
- Mrs. Ayers inspected the original baby oil container, found no warning about aspiration, and believed the only potential danger was diarrhea, thus not seeking immediate medical attention.
- Later that evening, David developed severe breathing difficulties and required hospitalization, including a special extracorporeal membrane oxygenation therapy in St. Louis.
- Despite treatment, David suffered a cardiac arrest, which resulted in irreparable brain damage, leaving him physically disabled, mentally retarded, unable to speak, and prone to seizures.
- The Ayers family testified they consistently kept known dangerous household items, like cleaning products, out of the reach of the twin babies.
- Mrs. Ayers testified that she habitually read product labels and would have stored the baby oil securely, like other hazardous items, if she had been aware of the dangers of aspiration.
- Expert testimony established that baby oil, primarily mineral oil, poses unique and significant risks if aspirated, due to its properties that inhibit gag/cough reflexes, hinder lung clearance mechanisms, and render macrophages ineffective, distinguishing it from other ingestible liquids.
Procedural Posture:
- David Ayers' parents and guardian ad litem (the Ayerses) filed a product liability lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson Baby Products Co. in trial court, alleging negligence for failure to warn.
- A jury found in favor of the Ayerses, awarding $2 million to David and $500,000 to his parents.
- The trial court granted Johnson & Johnson's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV), finding insufficient evidence of proximate causation or foreseeability, and alternatively ordered a new trial due to alleged jury misconduct.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision, reinstating the jury verdict for the Ayerses.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is foreseeability an element that a plaintiff must prove in a product liability claim based on a manufacturer's failure to provide adequate warnings for dangers existing at the time of manufacture under RCW 7.72.030(1)(b)?
Opinions:
Majority - Guy, J.
No, foreseeability is not an element of a product liability claim based on inadequate warnings provided at the time of manufacture under RCW 7.72.030(1)(b). The court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision, reinstating the jury verdict in favor of the Ayerses. First, the court found sufficient evidence to establish proximate causation. While immediate medical attention would not have prevented injury once the oil was inhaled, the jury could reasonably infer that if the Ayerses had been warned of the dangers of aspiration, they would have exercised greater care, storing the baby oil out of David's reach and thus preventing the accident. The court also held that plaintiffs are not required to provide the exact wording of an adequate warning, only its substance. The court further concluded that legal causation was met, emphasizing that baby oil is intended for use on babies, who predictably put things in their mouths, and expert testimony confirmed its unique aspiration risks. Second, the court clarified that RCW 7.72.030(1)(b) establishes a strict liability standard for failure-to-warn claims at the time of manufacture, mirroring the design defect standard in RCW 7.72.030(1)(a). The presence of the term "negligence" in RCW 7.72.030(1) refers to a "negligence-like" strict liability standard, not common law negligence which includes foreseeability. The statutory phrase "likelihood that the product would cause the claimant's harm" denotes probability, distinct from foreseeability. The court applied the balancing test within subsection (b) (likelihood/seriousness of harm vs. burden of warning) and the consumer expectation test of RCW 7.72.030(3), concluding that given the gravity of potential harm from aspiration and the ordinary consumer's unawareness of this danger, the jury was justified in finding the product not reasonably safe without a warning. Third, the court found no cognizable juror misconduct. Allegations of improper jury voting procedures, derived from juror affidavits concerning internal deliberations, "inhere in the verdict" and are inadmissible to challenge it. Moreover, the open court polling of the jury, where 10 of 12 jurors confirmed their verdict, validated the outcome and cured any alleged procedural irregularities during deliberations.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarified Washington's product liability law by unequivocally establishing a strict liability standard for failure-to-warn claims concerning dangers existing at the time of manufacture. By rejecting foreseeability as an element, the court imposed a higher duty on manufacturers to identify and warn of inherent product risks, regardless of their prior knowledge. This ruling underscores the importance of the "consumer expectation" test and product-focused liability, particularly for products marketed for vulnerable populations like infants, ensuring that serious, though perhaps rare, harms are adequately addressed through warnings. The decision also reinforces judicial deference to jury verdicts by strictly limiting the grounds for overturning them based on alleged internal misconduct when polling confirms the verdict.
