Carruth v. Pittway Corp.

Supreme Court of Alabama · Torts

Tortsproducts liabilityfailure to warnsummary judgmentexpert testimonyAEMLDnegligent failure to warnadequate warning

Facts

Two days before a fatal house fire, Coy Carruth installed a Pittway smoke detector on a first-floor wall near the ceiling by the staircase, using a box diagram for general placement and without reading the accompanying pamphlet in depth. Carruth claimed the pamphlet inadequately warned that placing the detector too near the wall-ceiling junction could put it in a dead air space where smoke would not timely reach the alarm. The seven decedents were upstairs when the fire began in the first-floor kitchen, and all died after the detector allegedly failed to sound a timely alarm. Carruth offered expert testimony from James Munger that the detector was in dead air space and that the physical evidence was inconsistent with a timely warning.

Issue

Whether Carruth produced substantial evidence that Pittway's pamphlet gave a legally inadequate warning about dead-air-space placement and that the inadequacy proximately caused the deaths. Also, whether Pittway could obtain summary judgment on the AEMLD claim based on product misuse when it had not pleaded misuse as an affirmative defense.

Rule

In a negligent-failure-to-warn case, the plaintiff must present substantial evidence of duty, breach, causation, and damages. A warning may be legally inadequate not only because of its wording, but also because its position, size, coloring, or overall presentation is not calculated to attract the user's attention and thereby prevents the consumer from reading and being warned. At summary judgment, admissible expert and circumstantial evidence may constitute substantial evidence of causation. In an AEMLD action, product misuse is an affirmative defense that the defendant must plead and prove.

🔒

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 Phoenix, Nora Vega bought a home carbon-monoxide detector made by Desert Peak Safety. The box displayed a large color diagram showing the detector mounted directly above a furnace-room doorway, while the enclosed booklet mentioned in dense small print on page 5 that the device should not be placed within 12 inches of that doorway because airflow could delay detection; Nora skimmed the booklet and followed the box diagram.

On Nora's negligent failure-to-warn claim, which is the strongest argument for denying the manufacturer's summary-judgment motion on breach?

Explanation. The majority held that a warning may be legally inadequate not only because of wording, but because its position, print size, formatting, and overall presentation are not calculated to attract the user's attention and effectively prevent the consumer from reading it. A prominent diagram suggesting the questioned placement, combined with a dense booklet that disperses the caution, creates a jury issue on breach. (Derived from Carruth v. Pittway Corp. (n.d.).)