Just because you can prove that a consumer product lacks an adequate warning doesn't mean you're going to win your personal injury lawsuit. And lest you think that the Federal Court's holding in Bloom v. ProMaxima Manufacturing Ltd.  is an isolated incident, consider our post from last week, "NY Jury Finds Clothing Retailer Negligent, But Not Liable, For Plaintiff's Burns."

In this case, the plaintiff used the defendant's exercise chair rather frequently for his workouts, but on this one fateful occasion, the T-bar on the chair's footrest came apart, causing the plaintiff to fall and sustain serious personal injuries.

Following trial, the jury concluded that the chair should have come with a warning that apprised the public about the possibility and danger that the T-bar could separate. On the other hand, the jury also found that since the plaintiff used the chair very frequently, even multiple times each week, they found incredible the plaintiff's contention that he was not aware that the the T-bar could separate. As a result, the jury held that inadequacy of the warning was not a substantial factor in causing plaintiff's injuries, and based thereon, dismissed his case.

Quite frankly, I don't blame the jury in this case. They probably reached the right result.
Jonathan Cooper
Connect with me
Non-Compete, Trade Secret and School Negligence Lawyer
Post A Comment