Bray v. Marathon Corp.

Supreme Court of South Carolina · 2003 · Torts

TortsProducts liabilityStrict liabilityNegligenceEmotional distressproducts liabilitystrict liabilitynegligence

Facts

Baron Blackmon was inside a Ram Jet trash compactor manufactured by Marathon and leased by American Refuse Systems to General Electric when co-worker Marilyn Bray approached to throw away trash. After Blackmon told Bray it was safe, she pressed the compactor's start button, and the ram moved toward Blackmon rather than away from him; her efforts to stop it were unsuccessful unless she continuously held the stop button. Bray left briefly to get help, returned to find Blackmon blue and unconscious, and he later died from his injuries. Bray sued Marathon alleging breach of warranty, strict liability, and negligence, claiming serious and permanent physical injuries caused by the emotional trauma of witnessing Blackmon's death.

Issue

Whether Bray, who operated the allegedly defective compactor and allegedly suffered physical injuries from the emotional trauma of witnessing her co-worker's death, could proceed on strict liability and negligence theories. More specifically, the court considered whether Kinard's bystander analysis barred her claims and whether proximate cause presented a genuine issue of fact.

Rule

Under South Carolina's Defective Products Act, a plaintiff who is a user of a defective product may seek strict liability for physical harm caused by the defect, and physical injuries arising from emotional trauma qualify as physical harm. Kinard's bystander limitations do not apply to a strict liability claim brought by a user of the product. In this products-liability context, if the plaintiff is a direct victim and foreseeable plaintiff as a user for strict liability purposes, the plaintiff is likewise a direct victim for negligence purposes, and recovery may be available for physical injury resulting from shock, fright, or emotional upset under Padgett.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

At a packaging plant in Columbus, Ohio, Nina Alvarez saw technician Leo Martin crouched inside an industrial carton sealer while troubleshooting it. At Leo's request, Nina pressed the machine's control panel buttons to cycle the mechanism, and the sealer suddenly jammed and crushed Leo's arm; Nina later developed medically documented ulcers and severe hypertension caused by the shock of the incident.

If Nina sues the manufacturer on a strict liability theory for her own physical injuries, which is the strongest argument against summary judgment for the manufacturer?

Explanation. The majority held that a plaintiff who operated the defective product's controls in an effort to assist another was a "user" under the Defective Products Act, drawing on Restatement comment l. It also held that physical injuries arising from emotional trauma qualify as physical harm, and that Kinard's bystander close-relationship limitation does not apply to a strict liability claim brought by a user. Therefore Nina's status as a user is the key reason summary judgment should be denied. (Derived from Bray v. Marathon Corp. (n.d.).)