Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendant-manufacturer’s motion for summary judgment in plaintiff’s action alleging that defendant failed to adequate warn plaintiff of fire hazard, where plaintiff sustained injuries while attempting to use defendant’s Goof Off product to remove paint from his basement floor, when fire erupted in basement while plaintiff was using said product. Instant label contained adequate warnings regarding use of said product, since label needed only to identify principal hazard of flammability and listed multiple precautionary measures for consumers to take in order to avoid fire. However, Dist. Ct. erred in granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment with respect to plaintiff’s defective design case, where question remained as to whether, under plaintiff’s consumer expectations theory, ordinary customer would not assume that agitating Goof Off with brush, as instructed on label, would cause product’s vapors to ignite. Ct. further noted that question remained as to whether: (1) plaintiff had removed other potential causes of fire; (2) static electricity generated by agitation of brush was actual cause of fire as alleged by plaintiff’s experts; and (3) instant Goof Off product satisfied risk-utility test, where record showed that available water-based version of Goof Off that is not flammable did not pose serious risk of injury.
Federal 7th Circuit Court
Civil Court
Negligence