Temple v. Velcro USA, Inc.
37 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 1108, 148 Cal. App. 3d 1090, 196 Cal.Rptr. 531 (1983)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A manufacturer of a component part that learns its product is being used in a dangerous manner may be absolved of product liability if it provides a clear, direct, and unambiguous post-sale warning to the end-user.
Facts:
- Richard Temple owned a Raven S-55 hot air balloon which used a Velcro-brand hook and loop closure on its deflation panel.
- Velcro USA, Inc. manufactured the closure but was not involved in the design, manufacture, or sale of the balloon itself.
- After learning its product was being used on balloons, Velcro concluded this application was dangerous and unsuccessfully lobbied the Federal Aviation Administration to issue an airworthiness directive.
- In May 1977, Velcro hired a service to mail a direct warning letter to all known registered owners of such balloons, including Richard Temple.
- Richard and Paula Temple received a copy of this warning letter prior to the accident.
- Paula Temple allegedly stated after the accident that they had received the warning but "didn’t pay any attention to it."
- Richard Temple's balloon later crashed due to an alleged failure of the Velcro closure, resulting in his death.
Procedural Posture:
- Paula Temple filed a wrongful death action against Velcro USA, Inc. in the trial court, asserting claims for negligence, breach of warranty, and strict liability.
- Velcro moved for summary judgment, arguing its warning was a complete defense.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Velcro.
- Paula Temple, as the appellant, appealed the summary judgment to the intermediate court of appeal.
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 clear and unambiguous post-sale written warning, which was received by the end-user, constitute an adequate warning as a matter of law, thereby absolving the manufacturer of liability for negligence, breach of warranty, and strict liability?
Opinions:
Majority - Hastings, J.
Yes, a manufacturer's clear and unambiguous post-sale warning, received by the end-user, constitutes an adequate warning as a matter of law. An adequate warning serves as a complete defense to claims of strict liability, negligence, and breach of warranty. The court reasoned that the interpretation of a written document, such as the warning letter, is a question of law for a judge to decide when its language is clear and no extrinsic evidence is needed to understand it. Here, the court found the warning's language to be 'very clear, understandable and completely unambiguous,' effectively communicating the danger. Because the Temples actually received the warning, any arguments about the method of delivery are moot. Therefore, the warning was legally sufficient, and Velcro could not be held liable.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the power of an adequate warning as a complete defense in product liability cases, even against strict liability claims. It significantly strengthens a defendant's position by establishing that the adequacy of a clear, written warning is a question of law for a judge, not a question of fact for a jury. This precedent makes it easier for defendants to win on summary judgment, avoiding a full trial, if they can prove a sufficiently clear warning was sent and received by the plaintiff.
