 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Allen v. Long Mfg. NC Inc.8/10/1998
a warning to be safe. See RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 402A cmt. j (1965). Long's concussion that time auger was unreasonably dangerous without an adequate warning foreclosed Allen's argument that the auger could have been redesigned to make it safer, and renders moot the trial court's holding. Long did not argue to the trial court and does not argue to this court that the auger is safe without a warning. Long does argue that the portable auger is rendered safe with the warning. Therefore, the determinative issue is whether or not the auger's warning is adequate such that it renders the auger safe.
B. Long's Ditty of Care
As stated above, for Allen to establish Long's liability under a negligence theory, Allen must show that Long breached a duty of care to make the auger safer. The trial court held that Long complied with its duty of care, stating:
"Since, as a matter of law, the warning on the auger was adequate, and since, therefore, the auger was, as a matter of law, not in a defective condition or unreasonably dangerous, Long has met its duty of due care to provide an auger that was not in a defective condition or unreasonably dangerous."
Because the trial court's dismissal of Allen's negligence claim is premised on the legal adequacy of' the auger's warning, and we hold that the auger's warning is a question of fact for the jury, we must reverse the trial court's determination that Long met its duty of care.
C. Proximate Causation/Failure to Heed Warning
As with any claim of liability for negligence, the breach of a duty of care must be the proximate cause of the resulting injury . See Steele v. Rogers, 306 S.C. 546, 413) S.E.2d 329 (Ct. App. 1992). The plaintiff has the burden of showing that a warning would have made a difference in the conduct of the person warned. 63 AM. JUR. 2D Products Liability § 1240 (1997). Long argues and the trial court found that Allen's failure to heed the warning on the auger was the proximate cause of Allen's injuries because Allen's expert stated that if Allen had followed the auger's warnings, the accident would not have occurred. However, Allen's expert also stated that the warning, as written was inadequate.
The Restatement on Torts states: "Where warning is given, the seller may reasonably assume that it will be read and heeded .... " RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 4022A cmt. (1965). This section of the Restatement has been correctly interpreted to mean when an adequate warning, is given, the manufacturer may assume that it will be needed by the product user. Thomas v. Hoffman-La Roche, 949 F.2d 806 (5th Cir. 1992)(cited with approval in Odom v. G.D. Searle Co.. 979 17.2)d 1001 (4th Cir. 1992)). The testimony, by Allen's expert creates a factual issue as to whether a different, adequate warning could have changed Allen's conduct. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court's finding that the plaintiff failed to introduce evidence of causation.
CONCLUSION
The adequacy of the warning and the proximate cause of the accident are questions of fact for a jury . The trial court erred in granting summary judgment based on the warning's legal adequacy and the accident's proximate cause. Accordingly, the order of the trial Court is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
HEARN, J., concurs.
ANDERSON, J., concurs in result only.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 South Carolina Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|