 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Needham v. Coordinated Apparel Group6/28/2002
Defendants, comprised of the manufacturers, distributors and retailers of a cotton garment that ignited, injuring Stephanie Needham, appeal from a judgment based on a jury verdict in favor of plaintiffs, Stephanie and her parents, on their negligence, breach of warranty and products liability claims. Defendants contend the court erroneously: (1) denied their motion for judgment as a matter of law because the evidence established that the accident could not have happened as plaintiffs contended, and did not support their failure-to-warn products liability claim; (2) admitted a Congressional subcommittee hearing report; and (3) denied a motion for mistrial following plaintiffs' closing argument. We reject the first contention, but agree with the second, and therefore reverse and remand for a new trial.
Construed in the light most favorable to the judgment, see Haynes v. Golub Corp., 166 Vt. 228, 233, 692 A.2d 377, 380 (1997), the main evidence presented to the jury was as follows. On the morning of January 10, 1995, while she was "lean up against the chair that is in front of the [wood] stove to watch television," Stephanie Needham's cotton turtleneck suddenly burst into flame. Stephanie, her brother and her parents testified that at the time of the incident, the door to the wood stove was closed and there were no open flames or sparks. Stephanie recalled that she "heard a whooshing sound . . . then I turned my head and saw the flames." She immediately ran outside and rolled in the snow. After she stood up, however, the shirt reignited. Stephanie's brother then threw her to the ground and extinguished the flames.
The Hearthstone stove in question had a front window and a loading door on the left side which could be opened only with a special tool. Stephanie was not permitted to open the stove door, and had never done so. She had been "told not to sit on the hearth," and the chair which she leaned against at the time her shirt ignited was located approximately three feet from the stove.
Plaintiffs' expert, Dr. Charles Beroes, testified about how a cotton garment could ignite in the absence of an open flame:
When cotton is heated, it begins to decompose into . . . pyrolysis gas. . . . These gases are highly flammable . . . are generated at low temperatures, 380 degrees . . . depending upon what's on the fabric. There may be polymers or plastics . . . and dyes. . . . he spontaneous ignition temperature is that at which the gases will ignite without any outside assistance, no energy from the outside, no spark, no match, no flame. They will ignite spontaneously . . . automatically when one reaches temperatures like 875 degrees.
Dr. Beroes also offered an explanation as to how the turtleneck could have ignited without Stephanie feeling excessive heat:
It was very cold that morning, 10 to 20 degrees below zero and she was trying to keep warm. The back of her . . . turtleneck was hanging. The importance of this is she wouldn't sense heating of that lower part of the undershirt and its gasification and so on because it wasn't in contact with her skin. . . . he shirt became heated to 380 degrees . . . and [began] to pyrolyze profusely. . . . Now, while this is going on . . . chimneys we all know have a draft . . . drawing in air from the surrounding environment and now some of this vapor becomes heated sufficiently to its spontaneous ignition temperature, that is 875 degrees.
The evidence showed that cotton was combustible and had "hidden unknown dangers]." Specifically, evidence showed that cotton garments are self-propagating, or not self-extinguishing, so that they will continue to burn after the source of ignition is removed,
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Vermont Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|