 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
GAJEWSKI v. PAVELO12/22/1994
with the product, no warnings are mandated." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Sharp v. Wyatt, supra, 31 Conn. App. 847, quoting Goodbar v. Whitehead Bros., 591 F. Sup. 552 (W.D. Va. 1984), aff'd 769 F.2d 213 (4th Cir. 1985). If the product seller is aware of its purchaser's knowledge and sophistication with respect to the product, it may choose not to issue warnings. See Sharp v. Wyatt, supra, 848.
The plaintiffs agree that the court's initial charge, that the defendant Utica could not rely on the installer's knowledge, was correct. The court stated that " n order to adequately warn the Gajewskis, the seller had a duty to adequately warn and instruct the installer. The law is that if you determine that the seller could have anticipated that the consumer, the Gajewskis, did not know the dangers, then it was incumbent upon the seller to warn the Gajewskis by adequately warning and instructing the installer, regardless of his knowledge." The jury could find that a duty to warn ran from the manufacturer to the installer, whether or not the installer was a sophisticated user. The court later charged that "the importance of [Pavelo's] status as a skilled tradesperson and knowledgeable user is that under the law, even if one has the duty to warn or instruct, that manufacturer is not liable for failing to warn or instruct a party of facts that the party already knew . . . . f Mr. Pavelo was aware of what should be done in the installation of the subject furnace, or should have been aware based upon his profession and the knowledge of his fellow employees, the defendant Utica . . . is not and cannot be liable for failure to warn him of that which he already knew. The defendant Utica Radiator Corporation had no duty to warn Mr. Pavelo to clean the subject chimney at the time of installation if Mr. Pavelo, or his employees, knew or should have known that the chimney should have been cleaned prior to lighting the furnace, and knew or should have known of the consequences of failing to do so." In other words, Utica could not be liable for a failure to warn Pavelo of dangers of which he was already aware. There is no inconsistency here.
The court correctly charged that if the jury found that Utica had a duty to warn Pavelo, but did not render
such a warning, if it then also found that Pavelo was a knowledgeable user and therefore aware of the danger of installing the boiler without cleaning the chimney, then there could be no liability on the part of Utica. The Connecticut Product Liability Act; General Statutes § 52-572m et seq.; does not impose a duty to warn of known or open and obvious dangers, and, accordingly, there can be no liability for injuries resulting from open, obvious and known dangers. See Haesche v. Kissner, 229 Conn. 213, 216, 640 A.2d 108 (1994).
Taking the instructions as a whole, the court instructed the jury that if it found that Utica had a duty to warn, in considering whether Utica effectively discharged that duty or failed to discharge it, it was appropriate to consider the installer's professional knowledge and skills. This court held in Sharp v. Wyatt, supra, 31 Conn. App. 849, that while the sophisticated user doctrine is not an affirmative defense under Connecticut's product liability law, General Statutes § 52-572q "has incorporated the concerns underlying the sophisticated user doctrine. . . . he statute puts the issue of user awareness to the trier of fact along with other factors to be weighed in the aggregate." (Emphasis added.) The instructions appropriately explained to the jury that if it found that Utica had a duty to warn Pavelo adequately, one of the factors it should consider in determining liability was Pavelo's exp
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.
|
|