Moran v. Fabergé, Inc.
1975 Md. LEXIS 1372, 273 Md. 538, 332 A.2d 11 (1975)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A manufacturer has a duty to warn consumers of a product's latent dangers if it is reasonably foreseeable that the product could cause injury in its normal environment of use, even if the exact manner of the injury-causing accident is unusual or bizarre.
Facts:
- Nancy Moran, age 17, and her friend Randy Williams, age 15, were in the basement of a friend's home.
- A lit, unscented Christmas-tree-shaped candle was on a shelf in the room.
- In an attempt to make the candle scented, Williams grabbed a bottle of Fabergé's Tigress cologne, which was being used in the room as a laundry deodorant.
- Williams began to pour the cologne onto the lower portion of the candle, somewhat below the flame.
- The cologne, which was composed of 82% alcohol and had a flash point of 73° Fahrenheit, instantaneously ignited in a burst of fire.
- Nancy Moran, who was standing nearby, was burned on her neck and breasts.
- Fabergé was aware of the cologne's flammability but did not include a warning on the 'drip bottle' container.
Procedural Posture:
- Nancy Moran, through her father, sued Fabergé, Inc. and others in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County, a state trial court.
- A jury returned a verdict finding Fabergé negligent and awarded damages to Moran.
- The trial court judge granted Fabergé's motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (judgment n.o.v.), setting aside the jury's verdict.
- Moran, as appellant, appealed the judgment n.o.v. to the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, the state's intermediate appellate court.
- The Court of Special Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment in favor of Fabergé, the appellee.
- The Court of Appeals of Maryland, the state's highest court, granted Moran's petition for a writ of certiorari 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 manufacturer's duty to warn of a product's latent dangers extend to injuries resulting from a use that is not intended, but is a reasonably foreseeable misuse?
Opinions:
Majority - Digges, J.
Yes. A manufacturer's duty to warn of latent dangers extends to all uses that are reasonably foreseeable, not just those intended by the manufacturer. The proper inquiry is not whether the manufacturer could foresee the specific, bizarre sequence of events leading to the injury, but whether the product's dangerous propensity is likely to cause harm in the general environment of its foreseeable use. Here, it was reasonably foreseeable that a highly flammable cologne, used in a home, might come into contact with a common source of ignition like a flame. Therefore, the question of whether Fabergé was negligent for failing to warn of this latent danger was a proper one for the jury to decide.
Dissenting - O'Donnell, J.
No. A manufacturer's duty to warn does not extend to a use of a product that is so remote from its intended purpose as to be a palpably unanticipated and unforeseeable misuse. While foreseeability is the correct standard, it requires that the manufacturer be able to reasonably anticipate the use which led to the injury, not just the general environment. Pouring cologne on a lit candle is not a foreseeable use or misuse; it is a bizarre mishandling for which the manufacturer should not be held liable, especially given the product's 27-year accident-free history. The product was safe for its normal, intended use as a skin freshener.
Analysis:
This decision significantly broadens the scope of a manufacturer's duty to warn under Maryland negligence law. It shifts the focus of the foreseeability analysis from the specific actions of the user to the general environment in which the product is used. By holding that a manufacturer must anticipate its product's interaction with common elements in its environment (like a flame in a home), the case establishes a precedent that makes it more difficult for manufacturers to defend against failure-to-warn claims by arguing the consumer's specific actions constituted an unforeseeable 'misuse'. This places a greater burden on manufacturers to identify and warn against latent dangers that could be triggered by common environmental factors.
