 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
MILLER v. LEE APPAREL CO.11/8/1994
This case involves an appeal from the trial court's granting of summary judgment to claims made under the Kansas Product Liability Act (KPLA), K.S.A. 60-3301 et seq.
Robert G. Miller sued The Lee Apparel Company and VF Corporation (Lee Apparel) to recover for damages he suffered
when the lining of a pair of unionall coveralls he was wearing ignited and burned in a gasoline-induced fire.
The incident giving rise to this litigation occurred in October of 1988 when Miller and his wife, Shirley, were attempting to start their pickup.
Miller was wearing a pair of the Lee Apparel coveralls over his work clothes. The coveralls zipped in front and were made of a 65% polyester and 35% cotton outer shell with a quilted nylon lining made with 100% polyester fiberfill. Shirley had purchased them in 1980 or 1981 for her late husband and had given them to Miller when they married.
The fire occurred when Miller was under the hood of the pickup pouring gasoline from a small plastic cup into an uncovered carburetor while Shirley pumped the throttle and attempted to start the engine. Miller heard a "pop" and contemporaneously therewith a ball of fire struck his chest and face.
Miller attempted to protect his face and rolled on the ground while yelling at Shirley to assist him in putting out the fire. The flames were not extinguished until Miller buried himself face down in the dirt and grass. His hair, moustache, and eyebrows were singed. He was burned on his upper chest, neck, and hands.
Miller's suit against Lee Apparel alleged strict liability and negligence because of defective design and failure to warn. He also claimed breach of implied and express warranties.
Lee Apparel answered, denying liability and contending its product was in compliance with applicable federal standards when produced and that Miller had misused the product and failed to exercise due care for his safety.
Discovery disclosed that Vladimir Mischutin, a consultant in the area of flammability and flame retardancy, examined the coveralls, shirt, and undershirt that Miller was wearing when the fire occurred. Mischutin testified the outer shell of the coveralls was not very burned, but the inside lining of the coveralls was totally consumed in some areas. Mischutin observed that some areas of the polyester and cotton shirt that Miller was wearing had melted, but there was really no ignition or burn-through in the shirt.
Mischutin conducted flammability testing on the coveralls pursuant to the standards set forth in the Standards for the Flammability
of Clothing Textiles (Flammable Fabrics Act), 16 C.F.R. § 1610 et seq. (1994), except he tested only one sample instead of the required five samples, and he separately tested both the outer shell and inner lining while the standards require only the exposed part of the article of wearing apparel to be tested. See 16 C.F.R. §§ 1610.4, 1610.34.
Mischutin stated the outer shell passed the flammability standards, but that the inner lining barely passed. Mischutin also performed a simulated backfire test, which confirmed his opinion that the inner lining of the coveralls was flammable and easy to ignite. Mischutin's testimony was that while the outer fabric and inner lining did pass federal flammability standards, the coveralls "could have been made a lot safer."
Mischutin stated that 100% polyester fiberfill is extremely flammable and there are flame retardant alternatives that are readily available and very economical. Mischutin said that spraying polyester fiberfill with a resin that contains chlorine is a common treatment that wi
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Kansas Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|