 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Butz v. Lynch6/23/2000
v. American Isuzu Motors, Inc., 119 F.2d 1193, 1198 (5th Cir. 1997). Under the LPLA, a manufacturer is liable only for those uses it should reasonably expect of an ordinary consumer. Kennedy, A Primer on the Louisiana Products Liability Act, 49 La. Law Rev. at 586.
Employing the appropriate standard, two Louisiana appellate courts recently held that the intentional abuse of a chemical product for the purpose of getting high is not, as a matter of law, a reasonably anticipated use of that product. In Peterson v. G.H. Bass and Co., Inc., 97-2843, 713 So.2d 806, three teenagers inhaled the vapors of shoe care products to get high. The court affirmed the grant of summary judgment in favor of a manufacturer, concluding that the intentional misuse of the shoe care products was not a reasonably anticipated use by an ordinary person.
In Kelley v. Hanover Insurance Co., 98-506 (La. App. 5 Cir. 11/25/98), 722 So.2d 1133, a teenager died after intentionally inhaling propane gas from a plastic bag. The court affirmed the grant of summary judgment in favor of the manufacturer. Citing the Peterson case, the court equated "reasonably anticipated use" with that type of use a "manufacturer should reasonably expect of a reasonable person." The court noted that although the plaintiff introduced articles dealing with teenagers' inhalation of various commercial products, that information was not relevant to the question of what uses are reasonably anticipated.
Similarly, we find Testor's knowledge of the potential and actual intentional abuse of its product does not create a question of fact on the question of reasonably anticipated use. The OSP warned of the grave danger of inhaling the contents. The user in this case chose to ignore those warnings and instead intentionally abused the product for the illicit purpose of experiencing the intoxicating effects of one of its chemicals while driving on a major highway. It was the users' intentional abuse of the product and illegal conduct that caused the accident to ensue.
The intentional inhalation of OSP contrary to the warnings on the product under the circumstances of this case does not constitute a reasonable use of OSP. Accordingly, we hold as a matter of law, Patrick Lynch's use of OSP did not constitute a reasonably anticipated use of that product by an ordinary person, and find that the trial court properly granted the motion for summary judgment.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the judgment appealed from is affirmed. All costs of this appeal are assessed to appellants.
AFFIRMED.
Page 1 2 3 4 Louisiana Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|