Coffman v. Keene Corp.

Supreme Court of New Jersey · Torts

TortsProducts liabilityFailure to warnCausationstrict liabilityfailure to warnheeding presumptionproximate cause

Facts

Plaintiff worked as a naval electrician in cramped ship interiors from 1951 to 1969 and was exposed to asbestos dust from insulation products, including products supplied by Keene. Keene's asbestos products contained no health or safety warnings. Plaintiff later was diagnosed with pulmonary asbestosis and sued, alleging that Keene's failure to warn was a proximate cause of his injury. At trial, the court instructed the jury to presume plaintiff would have followed a warning had one been given, unless defendant produced contrary evidence.

Issue

In a strict-liability failure-to-warn case, should the court recognize a rebuttable presumption that, if an adequate warning had been provided, the plaintiff would have heeded it and acted to minimize the risk of injury? If so, may that unrebutted presumption satisfy proof that the failure to warn proximately caused the plaintiff's injury, including in the workplace context?

Rule

In a product-liability case based on failure to warn, the plaintiff is entitled to a rebuttable presumption that he or she would have followed an adequate warning had one been provided, and if unrebutted that presumption may establish product-defect causation. In workplace cases, the manufacturer rebuts the presumption only by proving either that a plaintiff-employee with meaningful choice would not have heeded the warning, or that the employer would not have heeded the warning by taking reasonable precautions and allowing employees to avoid or minimize the harm.

🔒

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 Newark, Lena Ortiz bought an industrial-strength solvent made by Harbor Crest Materials for use in restoring old furniture in her garage. The solvent carried no warning about a severe inhalation hazard, and Lena later developed a respiratory condition after using it repeatedly. At trial, Harbor Crest argues Lena cannot prove causation because no one knows what she would have done if a warning had appeared on the label.

How should the court rule on Harbor Crest's argument in a strict-liability failure-to-warn claim?

Explanation. The majority held that in a strict-liability failure-to-warn case, the plaintiff receives a rebuttable heeding presumption: if an adequate warning had been provided, the plaintiff would have followed it. If the defendant produces no contrary evidence, that presumption may establish product-defect causation. The rule does not create conclusive liability, and it does not require proof of negligence. (Derived from Coffman v. Keene Corp. (n.d.).)