 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Eagle-Picher Industries Inc. v. Balbos8/29/1990
in support of the right of the plaintiff to recover." Banks, 59 Md. App. at 424, 475 A.2d 1243(quoting Stein v. Overlook Joint Venture, 246 Md. 75, 81, 227 A.2d 226(1966)).
In Moran v. Faberge, Inc., 273 Md. 538, 332 A.2d 11(1975), the Court of Appeals noted that
a manufacturer's duty to produce a safe product, with appropriate warnings and instructions when necessary, is no different from the responsibility each of us bears to exercise due care to avoid unreasonable risks of harm to others. Whether any such unreasonable risk exists in a given situation depends on balancing the probability and seriousness of harm, if care is not exercised, against the costs of taking appropriate precautions. However, we observe that in cases such as this the cost of giving an
adequate warning is usually so minimal, amounting only to the expense of adding some more printing to a label, that this balancing process will almost always weigh in favor of an obligation to warn of latent dangers, if the manufacturer is otherwise required to do so.
Id. at 543-44, 332 A.2d 11 (citations omitted). The Court then quoted Restatement (Second) of Torts ยง 388 (1965), observing that the section had previously been adopted as a general principle in the duty to warn area by previous Maryland cases. Section 388 states as follows:
Chattel Known to Be Dangerous for Intended Use
One who supplies directly or through a third person a chattel for another to use is subject to liability to those whom the supplier should expect to use the chattel with the consent of the other or to be endangered by its probable use, for physical harm caused by the use of the chattel in the manner for which and by a person for whose use it is supplied, if the supplier
(a) knows or has reason to know that the chattel is or is likely to be dangerous for the use for which it is supplied, and
(b) has no reason to believe that those for whose use the chattel is supplied will realize its dangerous condition, and
(c) fails to exercise reasonable care to inform them of its dangerous condition or of the facts which make it likely to be dangerous.
Following a lengthy review of the case law and the commentaries on the subject, the Moran court concluded that
in the products liability domain a duty to warn is imposed on a manufacturer if the item it produces has an inherent and hidden danger about which the producer knows, or should know, could be a substantial factor in bringing injury to an individual or his property when the manufacturer's product comes near to or in contact with the elements which are present normally in the environment
where the product can reasonably be expected to be brought or used . . . .
273 Md. at 552, 332 A.2d 11(emphasis added).
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals addressed the issue of what manufacturers "should know" in Dartez v. Fibreboard Corp., 765 F.2d 456(5th Cir. 1985). Summarizing the holding in Borel v. Fibreboard Paper Products Corp., 493 F.2d 1076(5th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 869, 95 S.Ct. 127, 42 L.Ed.2d 107(1974), the Dartez court said,
Borel holds all manufacturers to the knowledge and skill of an expert. They are obliged to keep abreast of any scientific discoveries and are presumed to know the results of all such advances. Moreover, they each bear the duty to fully test their products to uncover all scientifically discoverable dangers bef
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Maryland Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|