Latest Products Liability Law News Presented by Products Liability Law Daily

Story 3 of 5

Product Liability

Maryland District Court: Sealed container defense not applicable in ladder-related injury claim

The seller of the “Little Giant” ladder could not escape liability under the sealed container defense for enhanced injuries suffered by a user of the ladder, the federal district court in Maryland held. The sealed container defense was deemed to be inapplicable to the claims in this case because the seller had made certain express warranties about the safety and quality of the ladder, which were breached when the user’s thumb became entrapped in a portion of the ladder (Green v. Wing Enterprises, Inc., November 20, 2015, Bennett, R.).

Background.  Kathleen Green purchased the “Little Giant” ladder after seeing it advertised on QVC, Inc. Mrs. Green contended that she decided to buy the ladder after watching demonstrations and hearing representations made by QVC during one of its infomercials. She also claimed that she visited the QVC website to get more information on the ladder.  Sometime after the ladder was delivered “new in the box” to the Green residence, Mr. Green used the ladder to close a second-story window during a storm. Mr. Green fell from the ladder and as he fell, his thumb became lodged at the point of the ladder where the flared outer rail meets the straight inner rail forcibly separating Mr. Green’s thumb from his hand.

As a result of this incident, the Greens filed suit against Wing Enterprises, Inc., the manufacturer of the ladder, and QVC, Inc., the seller, alleging a violation of the Maryland Consumer Protection Act (MCPA) and various tort and contract state-law claims. The complaint alleged that Mr. Green suffered an “enhanced injury” when using the ladder, which was alleged to be defective and unreasonably dangerous.  Pending before the court were QVC’s motions for partial summary judgment on the misrepresentation and MCPA claims, along with a motion for summary judgment on the sealed container defense.

Sealed container defense. The “sealed container defense,” which places responsibility for liability for damages and injury caused by defective products on manufacturers, rather than retailers, did not protect QVC from liability. The defense shields a seller from personal injury or property damage liability for a defective product if: (1) the product was acquired and then sold or leased by the seller in a sealed container or in an unaltered form; (2) the seller had no knowledge of the defect;  (3) the seller could not have discovered the defect; (4) the seller did not manufacture, produce, design, or designate the specifications of the product that were the proximate and substantial cause of the injuries; and (5) the seller did not modify the product in a manner which was the proximate or substantial cause of the claimant’s injury. This defense is not available to a seller who has made “any express warranties, the breach of which were the proximate and substantial cause of the claimant’s injury.”

According to the court, even if the seller could satisfy each requirement of the sealed container defense, the defense was not applicable because the seller had made certain express warranties that precluded its entitlement to the defense. The court found that the seller had represented through its website and television program that the ladder was safe and built to government and industry safety standards.  Furthermore, the court opined that a reasonable jury could conclude that the seller made express warranties, the breach of which was the proximate cause of the injuries sustained. Thus, the seller’s motion for summary judgment on the sealed container defense was denied.

Remaining claims. The seller’s motions for partial summary judgment on the user’s misrepresentation and Maryland Consumer Protection Act claims also were denied after the court found that genuine issues of material fact existed with respect to whether the purchaser had relied on false statements made by the seller and whether the seller had acted recklessly by conducting no independent inquiry into the product’s accident history.  

The case is No. RDB-14-1913.

Attorneys: Steven M. Pavsner (Joseph Greenwald and Laake PA) for Christopher Green. Bryan Ross Ebert (Anderson, Coe & King) for Wing Enterprises, Inc. and QVC, Inc.

Companies: Wing Enterprises, Inc.; QVC, Inc.