 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hoon v. Lightolier9/15/2004
This is a products liability case by homeowners and their insurer against the manufacturer of a light fixture. The fixture, as one of its component parts, had a safety device that was designed to make the light blink on and off if the insulation in the immediate vicinity of the fixture got too hot. Alternating the electric current in this manner lowered the temperature emitted by the lightbulb and warned users of the problem.
The fixture was accompanied by a label telling the installers of the fixture not to place insulation within three inches of it. The installer of the fixture failed to heed the warning. As a result, heat from the fixture was entrapped, and the insulation ignited, causing a devastating fire. To complicate matters, the safety device, because of either a manufacturing defect and/or negligent design, did not operate properly, and the lights never blinked. In litigation that followed, the owners of the home damaged by the fire contended that their property loss had two concurrent causes: (1) the failure of the installer of the light fixture to abide by the manufacturer's warning and (2) the failure of the safety device to prevent the fire due to its negligent manufacture and/or defective design.
Summary judgment was entered in the Circuit Court for Kent County in favor of the manufacturer of the light fixture. One of the grounds for summary judgment was that (purportedly) the sole proximate cause of the fire was the failure of the installer of the light fixture to heed the manufacturer's warning. The motions judge rejected the argument that the negligent manufacture and/or design of the safety device was a concurrent cause of the fire.
The major issue presented in this appeal is whether the motions judge was legally correct in granting summary judgment on the ground that the third party's failure to heed the manufacturer's warning was the sole proximate cause of the fire.
I. FACTUAL SUMMARY
Due to fire damages mentioned above, David and Texie Hoon ("the Hoons") and their insurer, Federal Insurance Company, brought suit in the Circuit Court for Kent County against Lightolier, a Genlyte Thomas Company, LLC ("Lightolier"), and others.
Lightolier is the manufacturer of light fixtures, which were installed by Gede Installation, LLC ("Gede"), in the Chestertown, Maryland, residence of the Hoons. Lightolier affixed to each of the light fixtures a label containing the following words:
WARNING-RISK OF FIRE DO NOT INSTALL INSULATION WITHIN 3 INCHES OF FIXTURE SIDES OR WIRING COMPARTMENT NOR ABOVE FIXTURE IN SUCH A MANNER TO ENTRAP HEAT.
A similar warning was enclosed in the box in which the light fixtures were shipped.
On each of the light fixtures installed by Gede were self-heating thermal protectors ("SHTPs"), which were intended to cycle, i.e., regulate the electric flow to the bulb so that the light would blink on and off if the area adjacent to the fixture got too hot. As designed by Lightolier, the SHTPs were located approximately three inches from the base of the light fixture. A purpose of the blinking light feature was to alert the consumer to the insulation problem (and/or the light- fixture problem) so that corrective action could be taken. Another purpose of the blinking lights was to lower the temperature of the lightbulb and prevent overheating.
Attached to the fixture was another label, which read:
NOTICE - THERMALLY PROTECTED FIXTURE BLINKING LIGHT MAY INDICATE INSULATION TOO CLOSE TO FIXTURE OR IMPROPER LAMP.
When Gede installed the light fixture in the Hoons' residence, its agents placed the fixture flush against the insulati
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Maryland Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|