Bernard v. Ferrellgas, Inc.
689 So. 2d 554, 1997 La. App. LEXIS 116, 1997 WL 43415 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Louisiana Products Liability Act, a product may be considered unreasonably dangerous in design if a safer, alternative design existed that could have prevented the claimant's harm, and the risk of harm posed by the product outweighs the burden of adopting the alternative design. A manufacturer's failure to incorporate such a safety device can be a substantial factor in causing an injury, potentially creating liability even if the user was also negligent.
Facts:
- Russell Bernard worked as a butcher at Swifty Food Store, where he operated a custom-made, outdoor meat smoker.
- Defendant Ferrellgas, Inc. designed and installed the propane delivery system for the smoker.
- The system required manual operation of two separate valves to light the burner; the second valve was located near ground level.
- Users were instructed to ignite a striker before opening the second valve to prevent the accumulation of propane gas, which could cause an explosion.
- The propane delivery system did not include a thermocouple or any other automatic safety shut-off device that would prevent gas from flowing without a flame.
- On October 16, 1992, the smoker exploded while Russell Bernard was lighting it.
- The explosion caused massive head injuries that resulted in his instant death.
Procedural Posture:
- Jennifer Bernard (plaintiff) filed a products liability lawsuit against Ferrellgas, Inc. (defendant) in a Louisiana state trial court.
- The case proceeded to a jury trial.
- At the close of the plaintiff's case, Ferrellgas moved for a directed verdict, arguing Bernard had failed to prove her case.
- The trial court judge granted the motion for a directed verdict in favor of Ferrellgas.
- Jennifer Bernard (appellant) appealed the trial court's decision to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit (appellee Ferrellgas).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Under the Louisiana Products Liability Act, does a plaintiff present sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find that a custom-made propane delivery system was unreasonably dangerous in design for lacking a safety shut-off device, where such a device could have prevented a fatal explosion, even if the user's own actions may have contributed to the accident?
Opinions:
Majority - Woodard, J.
Yes. A plaintiff presents sufficient evidence for a jury to find a product unreasonably dangerous when they show that an alternative design could have prevented the injury and that the product's risk outweighed its utility. The court found that Jennifer Bernard presented substantial evidence that reasonable jurors could use to reach a conclusion in her favor. Under the Louisiana Products Liability Act (LPLA), the plaintiff must show: (1) an alternative design existed, and (2) the product's risk outweighed the burden of adopting that design. Bernard provided expert testimony that safety shut-off devices existed and would have 'vastly reduced' the risk of explosion. The court determined that the user's potential negligence is not dispositive; the key question is whether the lack of the safety device was a 'substantial factor' in causing the injury, much like the lack of a seatbelt can be a cause of injury in a car crash regardless of who caused the accident. Given evidence that the low-placed valve could have been opened inadvertently, a reasonable jury could find that Ferrellgas's failure to install a safety device was a substantial factor in Russell Bernard's death and that the design was unreasonably dangerous.
Concurring - Sullivan, J.
Judge Sullivan concurred in the result without a separate written opinion.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the evidentiary threshold for a design defect claim to survive a directed verdict under the Louisiana Products Liability Act. It establishes that a user's contributory negligence is not a complete bar to recovery if the plaintiff can demonstrate that an alternative, safer design would have prevented or mitigated the harm. The court's focus on the 'substantial factor' test for causation separates the cause of the underlying event (the user's actions) from the cause of the injury (the alleged design defect), strengthening plaintiffs' positions in cases involving user error. The decision also underscores that a more specific risk-utility analysis may apply to custom-made products as opposed to mass-produced items.
Unlock the full brief for Bernard v. Ferrellgas, Inc.