Drayton v. Jiffee Chemical Corp.
591 F.2d 352, 12 Ohio Op. 3d 135 (1978)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A manufacturer's advertisements affirming that an inherently dangerous product is 'safe' for use creates an express warranty that is breached when a consumer is injured, even if the injury results from a foreseeable misuse or intervening act of a third party.
Facts:
- In 1966, Mrs. Sorrell purchased Liquid-plumr drain cleaner after seeing television advertisements representing the product as 'safe' and 'fast action.'
- On December 21, 1968, James Henderson, the father of one-year-old Terri Drayton, obtained the bottle of Liquid-plumr from Mrs. Sorrell to unclog a sink.
- Henderson, who had also seen advertisements for Liquid-plumr stating it was 'safe,' carried Terri up the stairs in one arm and the bottle of drain cleaner in the other.
- In the bathroom, Henderson poured half the bottle into the drain and then placed the uncapped bottle on the back of the sink.
- Terri entered the bathroom, and the bottle of Liquid-plumr spilled on her, causing severe and permanent facial burns and disfigurement.
- The Liquid-plumr formula at the time of the incident contained a 26% solution of sodium hydroxide, commonly known as lye.
- Contemporaneous Jiffee television commercials for Liquid-plumr showed a human hand swishing water around in a sink to demonstrate the product's safety.
Procedural Posture:
- Terri Drayton and her mother, Bernice Drayton, brought a diversity suit against Jiffee Chemical Corporation in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.
- Following a nonjury trial, the district court found Jiffee Chemical Corporation liable on theories of negligence, breach of express and implied warranties, and strict liability.
- The district court entered a final judgment awarding $1,600,000 in damages to Terri Drayton and $112,466 to Bernice Drayton, later reducing Bernice's award to $20,000 on rehearing.
- Jiffee Chemical Corporation (appellant) appealed the judgment of liability and the damages award to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
- The Draytons (appellees) filed a cross-appeal on the district court's refusal to award punitive damages.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a manufacturer's advertisement of a chemical drain cleaner as 'safe' create an express warranty that is breached when a child is injured by a foreseeable accidental spillage, thereby making the manufacturer liable despite the intervening actions of the child's father?
Opinions:
Majority - Engel, Circuit Judge.
Yes. A manufacturer's advertisement of a product as 'safe' creates an express warranty under Ohio law, and the manufacturer is liable for its breach when a foreseeable misuse causes injury, as the intervening act does not sever the chain of causation. The court affirms liability on the sole ground of breach of express warranty, finding that Jiffee Chemical Corporation's television and newspaper advertisements describing Liquid-plumr as 'safe' constituted an affirmation of fact that became part of the basis of the bargain. Both the purchaser and the user testified to seeing and relying on these representations. The court reasoned that Henderson's intervening actions—leaving the bottle uncapped and the subsequent spillage—were foreseeable misuses of a household product and therefore did not constitute a superseding cause that would absolve the defendant of liability. The court suggested that the false assurances of safety may have caused Henderson to give the product's warning label only a 'cursory examination,' a question of fact properly decided by the trial court. However, the court found the trial judge's damage awards for future lost income and medical expenses to be excessive and clearly erroneous because they were based on 'astronomical projections' and 'compounded accumulation of conjecture' from expert testimony, and it accordingly modified the judgment to a lower amount.
Concurring - Keith, Circuit Judge,
Yes. Judge Keith concurred with the majority's finding of liability based on breach of express warranty and its affirmance of the pain and suffering award, but dissented from the reduction of damages and the denial of punitive damages. He argued that the district court's awards for future earnings and psychiatric care were not clearly erroneous and that the majority engaged in inappropriate 'appellate fact finding.' He further contended that the court should have found liability on strict liability grounds because the product, containing 26% lye, was unreasonably dangerous for household use regardless of any warning. Citing admissions from a company manager, he argued Jiffee's conduct in marketing a product it knew to be hazardous—while advertising it as safe—was so egregious that an award of punitive damages was necessary to deter future wanton corporate behavior.
Analysis:
This case is significant for its clear affirmation that general advertising claims of 'safety' for an inherently dangerous product can create an actionable express warranty under the Uniform Commercial Code. It solidifies the principle that such claims are not mere puffery and can induce reliance that leads to liability. The court's analysis of intervening cause reinforces that a manufacturer's responsibility extends to foreseeable misuses of its product, preventing defendants from easily shifting blame to negligent users. Finally, the court's drastic reduction of the damages award serves as an important precedent limiting the use of highly speculative economic expert testimony, cautioning lower courts to keep damage calculations within 'reasonable bounds' and avoid projections 'ballooned beyond all rational experience.'
