Graves v. Church & Dwight Co., Inc.
267 N.J. Super. 445, 631 A.2d 1248 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a failure-to-warn products liability action, a rebuttable presumption that the plaintiff would have heeded an adequate warning can be overcome by evidence creating a factual question for the jury. Such evidence may include the plaintiff's long-standing familiarity with the product, conduct suggesting an instinctive reaction, and a history of ignoring other health and safety warnings.
Facts:
- William Graves had used Arm & Hammer baking soda as an antacid since childhood, a remedy he learned from his grandmother.
- On the evening of August 21, 1979, Graves, then 52 years old, ate a substantial dinner.
- Around midnight, Graves awoke with severe heartburn.
- He went to the kitchen and mixed approximately 5.7 grams of Arm & Hammer baking soda—about three times the label's recommended dosage—into a glass of water.
- Graves did not read the instructions or warnings on the baking soda box before consuming the mixture.
- Immediately after drinking most of the solution, he collapsed in enormous pain from a spontaneous stomach rupture.
- At the time of the incident, Graves was a heavy smoker, consuming two to three packs of cigarettes a day despite being aware of the Surgeon General's health warnings on the packages.
Procedural Posture:
- William and Joyce Graves filed an eight-count complaint against Church & Dwight Company, Inc. in a New Jersey trial court.
- Following a series of motions, dismissals, and appeals concerning the statute of limitations, the case proceeded to trial.
- At trial, the judge dismissed all counts except the strict liability failure-to-warn claim.
- A jury, answering special interrogatories, found the product was defective for its failure to warn but also found this failure was not a proximate cause of William Graves's consumption of the product.
- The trial court entered a judgment in favor of the defendant, Church & Dwight.
- Plaintiffs William and Joyce Graves, as appellants, appealed the judgment to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
In a strict liability failure-to-warn case, does a defendant present sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption that the plaintiff would have heeded an adequate warning by showing the plaintiff's long-standing familiarity with the product, his immediate physical distress, and his history of ignoring other product safety warnings?
Opinions:
Majority - Keefe, J.A.D.
Yes. In a strict liability failure-to-warn case, a defendant presents sufficient evidence to rebut the heeding presumption where it demonstrates the plaintiff's past behavior and circumstances surrounding the incident create a genuine issue of fact as to whether a warning would have been followed. The court recognized the existence of a rebuttable 'heeding presumption,' which presumes a plaintiff would have read and followed an adequate warning. However, this presumption does not shift the ultimate burden of proof from the plaintiff. Under New Jersey evidence rules, if the defendant offers sufficient contrary evidence, the issue of proximate causation becomes a question for the jury. Here, Church & Dwight successfully rebutted the presumption by introducing evidence that: (1) Graves had used the product for over fifty years and felt he knew how to use it, suggesting he would not have consulted a label; (2) his actions, prompted by sudden physical distress in the middle of the night, could be seen as instinctive rather than deliberative; and (3) his credibility regarding heeding warnings was undermined by his habit of smoking heavily despite the well-known warnings on cigarette packs. This evidence created a reasonable basis for the jury to conclude that the lack of a warning was not a proximate cause of Graves's consumption of the product.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the practical application of the 'heeding presumption' in New Jersey products liability law, establishing that it is a rebuttable evidentiary tool, not an irrebuttable conclusion of law. It demonstrates that a defendant can defeat a failure-to-warn claim on proximate causation grounds even when a product is found defective for lacking a warning. The decision is significant for providing clear examples of evidence sufficient to rebut the presumption, such as the plaintiff's personal habits, familiarity with the product, and history of ignoring other warnings. This shifts the trial focus from solely the adequacy of the warning to the subjective characteristics and likely behavior of the individual plaintiff, making the plaintiff's own credibility and conduct central to the causation analysis.
