Ellsworth v. Sherne Lingerie, Inc.
52 A.L.R. 4th 247, 303 Md. 581, 495 A.2d 348 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a strict liability claim, a product user's conduct does not constitute 'misuse' if the manner of use was reasonably foreseeable to the manufacturer, even if the user was careless. Misuse is not an affirmative defense but rather negates the plaintiff's required proof of either a product defect or proximate cause.
Facts:
- On February 25, 1980, Elizabeth Horton Ellsworth was wearing a flannelette nightgown composed of a cotton and polyester blend.
- The fabric was manufactured by Cone Mills Corporation, and the nightgown was designed and manufactured by Sherne Lingerie, Inc.
- Ellsworth wore the nightgown inside out, which caused the side pockets to protrude from the garment.
- While preparing coffee in her kitchen, Ellsworth reached over her electric stove, which had a partially exposed burner turned to 'high'.
- The nightgown, likely one of the protruding pockets, came into contact with or close proximity to the hot burner and ignited.
- Ellsworth suffered severe and permanent burns as a result of the fire.
- Cone Mills had provided a flammability warning to Sherne, stating the fabric should not be worn near a source of fire, but Sherne did not pass this warning on to consumers.
Procedural Posture:
- Elizabeth Horton Ellsworth sued Sherne Lingerie, Inc. and Cone Mills Corporation in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland (a trial court).
- The complaint alleged negligence, strict liability in tort, and breach of implied warranty.
- At trial, the judge granted a directed verdict for the defendants on the punitive damages counts.
- The jury returned a general verdict in favor of the defendants on all remaining counts.
- Ellsworth, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland (the intermediate appellate court).
- The Court of Special Appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court.
- Ellsworth, as petitioner, was granted a writ of certiorari by the Court of Appeals of Maryland (the state's highest court) to review the decision.
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 product user's careless but reasonably foreseeable conduct constitute 'misuse' sufficient to bar recovery in a strict liability claim?
Opinions:
Majority - McAuliffe, Judge.
No. A user's careless but reasonably foreseeable use of a product does not constitute 'misuse' that would bar recovery in a strict liability action. The court held that 'reasonable foreseeability' is the appropriate test for determining misuse. A seller must provide a product that is not unreasonably dangerous when used for a purpose and in a manner that is reasonably foreseeable. Here, it was clearly foreseeable that a person would wear a nightgown in a kitchen near a stove. Further, it was foreseeable that a loosely fitting garment might be worn inside out or could come into contact with an ignition source through momentary inattention. This conduct, while potentially constituting contributory negligence (which is not a defense to strict liability), does not rise to the level of product misuse, which involves an abnormal or unforeseeable use. Therefore, the trial court erred in giving a jury instruction on misuse because the evidence was legally insufficient to generate that issue.
Concurring - Eldridge, Judge.
This opinion agrees with the majority's conclusion and its reasoning regarding the product misuse issue. However, the concurrence was written to express disagreement with the majority's approach to the evidentiary issue concerning the public records exception to the hearsay rule. The concurring judge argued that the majority's decision to strictly construe 'factual findings' and exclude all opinions or evaluations in public reports was too rigid and contrary to the weight of authority. The concurrence advocated for giving trial judges discretion to admit such evaluations if they are deemed trustworthy, rather than adopting a firm, unworkable line between 'fact' and 'opinion'.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the distinction between contributory negligence and product misuse within Maryland's strict liability jurisprudence. By defining misuse based on the foreseeability of the use from the manufacturer's perspective, the court limits a defendant's ability to re-characterize a plaintiff's simple carelessness as a complete bar to recovery. The decision also aligns Maryland with the modern trend of treating misuse not as an affirmative defense, but as a concept that negates essential elements of the plaintiff's case, such as defect or causation. This framework places a greater burden on manufacturers to anticipate a wide range of consumer behaviors, including minor negligence, when designing products.
