 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
GAJEWSKI v. PAVELO12/22/1994
brief, however, that the entity or person to whom the duty to warn was owed may vary when they state that "in this case" the duty was to the Gajewskis. (Emphasis added). Section 52-572m et seq. does not use the word "consumer"; it confers a cause of action on "claimants" who have been harmed by defective products and refers to "the expected product user." Both prior to and after the
enactment of § 52-572m et seq., Connecticut courts> have noted that unreasonably dangerous products were those considered to be unreasonably dangerous to the consumer or user. See Sharp v. Wyatt, supra, 31 Conn. App. 833; Coe-Park Donuts, Inc. v. Robertshaw Controls Co., 1 Conn. App. 84, 86, 468 A.2d 292 (1983).
"A principal purpose of the product liability statute is to protect people from harm caused by defective and hazardous products. In order to meet this purpose, it is necessary that the statute be read to reach all conduct which affects the safety of a product prior to its entry into the stream of commerce. The terms enumerated in General Statutes § 52-572m(b) are simply generic categories of conduct which must be read broadly and in relationship to one another in order to accomplish the purposes of the statute." (Emphasis added.) Rodia v. Tesco Corp., 11 Conn. App. 391, 396, 527 A.2d 721 (1987). While most product liability suits are brought by consumers, the plaintiff's assertion that only consumers may bring such primary suits because they are the only persons or entities to whom a statutory duty is owed is incorrect. See Sharp v. Wyatt, supra, 31 Conn. App. 850.
The statutory scheme is intended to protect anyone who is injured by a defective product. For example, the plaintiff in Sharp v. Wyatt, supra, 31 Conn. App. 824, was the employee of a retailer, not a consumer. The plaintiffs' reading of § 52-572q would bar others, such as installers and store employees who are injured by defective products, from bringing suit, because by the plaintiffs' interpretation of § 52-572q neither group includes consumers.
The plaintiffs are, therefore, not correct in arguing that the court should not have instructed the jury that Utica's sole duty to warn or to give adequate instructions
was to the installer, Pavelo. The court did instruct the jury that it was for the jury to decide if Pavelo was "the person best able to take precaution against any potential harm associated with the use of the subject product," and if it so found, then "any duty to instruct or warn as to the precautions necessary to safeguard against the potential harm from the manufacturer is to be directed to Mr. Pavelo." (Emphasis added.) In Sharp v. Wyatt, supra, 31 Conn. App. 849, this court noted that any warnings issued must ultimately reach "the ultimate product user." The foregoing instruction is not that the manufacturer had a duty to warn Pavelo only, but that the jury could find that issuing a warning to Pavelo, as the installer of the product who would come into direct contact with the ultimate product user, might have been the best way for the defendant Utica to warn the ultimate product user. This is not a misstatement of the law, but a statement that conforms with § 52-572q(d), which directs that " product seller may not be considered to have provided adequate warnings or instructions unless they were devised to communicate with the person best able to take or recommend precautions against the potential harm." (Emphasis added.)
The final alleged inconsistency in the charge on product liability concerns the "sophisticated user" doctrine. Under this doctrine, when the product seller "has reason to believe that the purchaser of the product will recognize the dangers associated
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Connecticut Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|