Nichols Ex Rel. Nichols v. Union Underwear Co.
1980 Ky. LEXIS 246, 602 S.W.2d 429 (1980)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a strict products liability action for defective design, the appropriate legal standard is not whether the product's danger is contemplated by the ordinary consumer, but whether an ordinarily prudent manufacturer, being fully aware of the risks, would have placed the product on the market.
Facts:
- Four-year-old Richard Nichols was playing with matches.
- A T-shirt he was wearing, which was manufactured and sold by Union Underwear Company, Inc., caught fire.
- Nichols was badly burned as a result of the T-shirt burning.
- The fabric used in the T-shirt complied with all applicable federal statutory standards for flammability.
Procedural Posture:
- Richard Nichols, through his father, sued Union Underwear Company, Inc. in the Franklin Circuit Court (a trial court of first instance) on a theory of strict liability for design defect.
- Following a trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant, Union Underwear.
- The trial court entered a judgment on the verdict for Union Underwear.
- Nichols (appellant) appealed the judgment to the Kentucky Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals (an intermediate appellate court) affirmed the trial court's judgment.
- The Supreme Court of Kentucky granted discretionary review to decide the issue.
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 jury instruction that defines 'unreasonably dangerous' solely by the 'consumer expectation' test—as being dangerous to an extent beyond that which would be contemplated by an ordinary adult purchaser—constitute a misstatement of the law in a strict liability design defect case?
Opinions:
Majority - Stephens, J.
Yes. A jury instruction defining 'unreasonably dangerous' solely by the consumer expectation test is erroneous because it improperly makes the obviousness of a danger an absolute defense. The court rejected the 'consumer expectation' test from comment i of the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A, which insulates products from liability if their dangers are obvious or anticipated by the ordinary person. Instead, the court adopted a 'prudent manufacturer' standard. This standard requires the jury to determine if the manufacturer, presumed to have full knowledge of the product's risks when it was sold, acted prudently in placing it on the market. This approach allows for the consideration of multiple factors beyond just consumer knowledge, such as the feasibility of safer alternative designs.
Dissenting - Stephenson, J.
No. The trial court should have granted a directed verdict for the defendant, making any error in the jury instructions irrelevant. The T-shirt was not defective; it complied with federal flammability standards. Unlike machinery that can have inherent design flaws like a lack of safety features, a T-shirt is not a product that has a propensity to cause harm by itself. The dissent argues that it is absurd for a jury to determine that a standard T-shirt is 'unreasonably dangerous' when the harm was caused by an external agent (matches) and the product met all federal safety regulations.
Concurring - Lukowsky, J.
Yes. While agreeing that the jury instruction was erroneous, the majority's proposed 'prudent manufacturer' test is too amorphous. The proper standard for determining if a design is unreasonably dangerous is a risk-benefit (or social utility) analysis. The jury should be explicitly instructed to balance two sets of factors: 1) the likelihood and seriousness of potential harm, against 2) the manufacturer's burden of designing a safer product and the adverse effect a safer design would have on the product's overall utility. The ultimate question is whether, at the time of manufacture, the product's risk to the consumer outweighed its utility to the public.
Analysis:
This case signifies Kentucky's move away from the restrictive 'consumer expectation' test for design defects, which was prevalent under the Restatement. By adopting a 'prudent manufacturer' standard, the court aligned Kentucky with a growing number of jurisdictions embracing a more nuanced, risk-utility-based analysis. This decision broadens potential liability for manufacturers, as they can no longer rely on the obviousness of a danger as an absolute defense. Future cases involving design defects in Kentucky would require plaintiffs to show that a prudent manufacturer, knowing the risks, would not have marketed the product, often involving evidence of feasible, safer alternative designs.
