Opinion

Brown v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.

  • 136 Ariz. 556
  • 667 P.2d 750
  • 1983 Ariz. App. LEXIS 461
Court
Court of Appeals of Arizona
Filed
Mar 8, 1983
Status
Published
Author
Froeb
On the bench
Corcoran, Froeb, Ogg
Cited by
37 cases

holding manufacturer of a power saw, that was safe if used with a grounded extension cord, could be liable for failure to warn if it was foreseeable user would attach improper cord

How later courts described this case

  • holding manufacturer of a power saw, that was safe if used with a grounded extension cord, could be liable for failure to warn if it was foreseeable user would attach improper cord
  • affirming summary judgment in favor of electrical extension cord manufacturer because it is common knowledge that frayed or cut electrical cords pose a dangerous threat to people who use them
  • finding foreseeability of misuse relevant to failure to warn
  • as a matter of law, no duty to warn adult that if an electrical extension cord is cut or frayed a danger of electrical shock is created

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

FROEB, Judge,

concurring in part; dissenting in part:

I concur with the majority decision affirming the trial court judgment as to appellee Coleman Cable and Wire Company. I respectfully disagree that the trial court erred in its judgment in favor of Sears, Roebuck & Company and The Singer Company. I would affirm the entire judgment.

Appellant’s decedent used the electric saw with a non-grounded two-prong extension cord contrary to express instructions and warnings furnished by Sears and Singer. In my opinion, the warnings and instructions made it unmistakably clear what the consequence could be if the saw were used with a two-prong extension cord. A skull and crossbones was not required. I would hold that the warnings were sufficient as a matter of law.

Since it is clear that the saw would not have been energized with an electric current if a grounded extension cord had been used, the saw was not unreasonably dangerous as a matter of law, regardless of whether there was an alternate design available.

Moreover, the extension cord was used with a taped-over cut in the wire which apparently led to the fatal short circuit. Misuse of a product is a defense to recovery under the theory of strict liability. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A, comment g. In my opinion, Sears and Singer are not required to foresee that a user will disregard all warnings and instructions and use a non-grounded extension cord. For this reason, I would hold that there is no triable fact question relating to misuse and the defense applies as a matter of law.

I would affirm the judgment.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.