Nowak v. Faberge U.S.A., Inc.
812 F. Supp. 492 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A product is defective due to an inadequate warning if the warning is not sufficiently prominent in its placement, size, and coloring to attract a user's attention to the danger. A manufacturer remains liable for injuries resulting from a foreseeable misuse of the product, even if that misuse is specifically warned against.
Facts:
- Faberge manufactured 'Aqua Net Hair Spray' using extremely flammable hydrocarbon propellants, butane and propane, after discontinuing a safer, non-flammable alternative.
- Faberge's marketing department decided to keep the product's labeling unchanged so consumers would not perceive a difference, despite the increased hazard.
- Faberge was aware from consumer complaints and government reports that users had been injured by puncturing aerosol cans near open flames.
- Amy Nowak purchased a can of Aqua Net for her sister, Alison Nowak.
- The can malfunctioned, initially spraying in spurts and then failing to spray at all.
- Believing she could transfer the contents, Alison Nowak attempted to open the can, ultimately puncturing its side with a can opener.
- The spray spurted out and came into contact with an open flame from a nearby gas stove, of which Nowak was unaware, enveloping her in flames and causing severe burns.
- The warning on the back of the can, which read 'CAUTION: FLAMMABLE. DO NOT USE NEAR FIRE OR FLAME...' and 'Do not puncture or incinerate,' was printed in small, white lettering against a light-colored background, making it less prominent than the marketing language on the can.
Procedural Posture:
- Alison Nowak sued Faberge, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (trial court) under a theory of products liability.
- The case was tried before a jury.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, Alison Nowak, on her claims that the product was defective due to a malfunctioning valve system and an inadequate warning, awarding her $1,500,000.
- The jury found in favor of the defendant, Faberge, on the plaintiff's separate claim of a design defect.
- Defendant Faberge filed post-trial motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) and, in the alternative, for a new trial.
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's warning label render it defective under strict products liability if the warning is not sufficiently prominent in size, color, and placement to alert a foreseeable user to the product's dangers, even when the user's misuse contributes to the injury?
Opinions:
Majority - Nealon, District Judge
Yes. A product is defective if its warning label is not adequate to make the product safe for use. The adequacy of a warning is a question for the jury, and here, the jury had sufficient evidence to find the warning defective. Expert testimony established that the warning was inadequate because it was not prominent, its size and placement were poor, it was not conspicuous, and it did not use signal words like 'DANGER' commensurate with the high risk of a highly flammable and pressurized product. The plaintiff's misuse of the product by puncturing the can was foreseeable to Faberge, particularly since the company specifically warned against it and had received reports of similar incidents. Because the misuse was foreseeable, it does not insulate the manufacturer from strict liability. Causation was established by evidence showing that a more effective and prominent warning 'might have made a difference' in preventing the accident.
Analysis:
This decision emphasizes that under strict products liability, the mere presence of a warning is insufficient; the warning must be effective in communicating the danger to the user. It reinforces the principle that foreseeability of consumer misuse is a critical factor, and a manufacturer cannot escape liability for an inadequate warning simply by noting the user violated the instruction. The case also highlights the influential role of expert testimony, particularly from human factors experts, in demonstrating how a warning's design, placement, and language can render it legally inadequate. This precedent serves as a caution to manufacturers that marketing aesthetics cannot take priority over the clear and conspicuous communication of significant product hazards.
Unlock the full brief for Nowak v. Faberge U.S.A., Inc.