# Brown v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.

> Court of Appeals of Arizona · March 8, 1983 · 136 Ariz. 556

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9537630

## Case

- **Full name:** Sue N. BROWN, Personal Representative of the Estate of Mark McCormick Brown, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SEARS, ROEBUCK & COMPANY, a New York Corporation; The Singer Company, a Delaware Corporation; And Coleman Cable and Wire Company, a Delaware Corporation, Defendants-Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals of Arizona
- **Decided:** March 8, 1983
- **Citations:** 136 Ariz. 556; 667 P.2d 750; 1983 Ariz. App. LEXIS 461
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Froeb
- **Judges:** Corcoran, Froeb, Ogg
- **Cited by:** 37 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9537630

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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
- noting distinction between manufacturer's warnings and instructions for safe use

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9537630. Public record. Not legal advice.