Briscoe v. Amazing Products, Inc.

Kentucky Court of Appeals · Torts

TortsProducts liabilitySuperseding causeForeseeabilityFailure to warnsuperseding causeintervening criminal actforeseeability

Facts

Sixteen-year-old Joyce Brown bought Liquid Fire, a drain cleaner manufactured and distributed by Amazing Products, from Ace Hardware. After a confrontation at Helena Briscoe's home, Dominique Briscoe struck Brown, and Brown then threw Liquid Fire toward the doorway intending to harm Helena, but most of it struck Dominique and caused substantial injuries. Dominique sued the manufacturer and seller, alleging the product was inherently dangerous, the warnings were inadequate, and the seller negligently provided it to a minor without warnings. Brown later pled guilty to assault and criminal mischief arising from the incident.

Issue

Whether the manufacturer and distributor of Liquid Fire could be liable for Dominique Briscoe's injuries when a third party intentionally used the product in a criminal attack, or whether that intentional criminal misuse was an unforeseeable superseding cause that cut off liability. The case also presented whether any alleged inadequacy in warnings could support liability despite Brown's deliberate misuse.

Rule

A superseding cause is an act of a third person or other force which, by its intervention, prevents the original actor from being liable for harm to another that the actor's antecedent negligence was a substantial factor in bringing about. A superseding cause must be of such an extraordinary, unforeseeable nature as to relieve the original wrongdoer of liability, and a manufacturer is required to anticipate only reasonable use in keeping with the product's warnings, not an intentional criminal misuse as a weapon.

🔒

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.

In Louisville, Nora Kim bought a bottle of industrial rust remover made by Bluebank Home Supply and sold by River Street Hardware. After an argument outside an apartment building, Nora deliberately splashed the liquid at Victor Lane to injure him, causing severe burns.

If Victor sues the manufacturer and retailer for product-related injuries, which is the strongest argument for summary judgment in their favor?

Explanation. The governing rule is that an intervening act by a third person can be a superseding cause when it is extraordinary and unforeseeable, thereby relieving the original actor of liability even if antecedent negligence was a substantial factor. The majority reasoned that a manufacturer and distributor need only anticipate reasonable use in keeping with the product's warnings, not an intentional criminal misuse of the product as a weapon. Here, Nora's deliberate assault would most likely be treated as an unforeseeable superseding cause as a matter of law. (Derived from Briscoe v. Amazing Products, Inc. (n.d.).)