This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P was severely injured by burning when she tripped over a vaporizer manufactured by D. The vaporizer consisted of three different parts, an aluminum pan, a 1-gallon glass jar and a black plastic cap to which is fastened a black plastic heating chamber tube. The design was such that the water in the jar would gush out instantaneously when the vaporizer tipped over. The unit could be tipped over with a slight force of 2 lbs. Water is heated in the unit to 212 degrees Fahrenheit. The temperature on the outside of the jar ranges from 172-182 degrees. The water would cause third degree burns in a 5-year-old child. The instruction book furnished by D did not disclose the scalding temperature of the water in the jar nor was there any warning given at to the dangers that could result if the unit were accidentally upset. P's mother justifiably relied on D's claim that the unit was safe, practically foolproof and tip proof. P called two expert witnesses whose qualifications in the field of product design were unquestioned. Both testified that the unit was defectively designed and that the defects could have been easily remedied by several practical and inexpensive alternative designs. D contends that anyone touching the jar would realize and conclude that the water in the jar is very hot. Judgment went to P, but the judge ordered judgment n.o.v. and a new trial. P appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.