Farias v. Mr. Heater, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Torts

TortsProducts liabilityFailure to warnstrict products liabilitynegligent failure to warnadequacy of warningssummary judgmentreasonable person standard

Facts

Farias purchased two propane gas-fired portable heaters from Home Depot that were manufactured by Enerco and Mr. Heater. She used the heaters inside her home and, after failing to close the valve on one propane tank before going to sleep, a fire occurred and caused substantial property damage. The packaging and instruction manual contained multiple English-language warnings stating that the heater was for outdoor use only, not for home use, not for living quarters, and should not be operated while sleeping, along with warnings about fire, asphyxiation, carbon monoxide, explosions, and property damage. Farias argued the warnings and graphics were ambiguous and that the adequacy of the warnings should have gone to the jury.

Issue

Whether, under Florida law, the adequacy of the warnings accompanying the Mr. Heater propane heater could be resolved as a matter of law on summary judgment, and whether those warnings were adequate despite Farias's claim that they were ambiguous and that Spanish-language or differently targeted warnings were required.

Rule

Under Florida law, a manufacturer has a duty to warn when a product is inherently dangerous or has dangerous propensities unless the danger is known or obvious. Although warning adequacy is often a question of fact, it may be decided as a matter of law when the warning is accurate, clear, and unambiguous. A warning is adequate if it makes apparent the potential harmful consequences and is of such intensity as to cause a reasonable person to exercise caution commensurate with the danger; adequacy is judged by an objective reasonable person standard rather than the particular plaintiff's subjective understanding.

🔒

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 Orlando, Nina Cruz bought a propane-powered patio warmer made by Gulf Torch Equipment from a local hardware store. The box stated in bold capitals, "OUTDOOR USE ONLY," "NOT FOR USE IN HOMES OR SLEEPING AREAS," and "FIRE AND CARBON MONOXIDE HAZARD," and the manual repeated those warnings several times; Nina nevertheless used it overnight in a spare bedroom, and a fire followed.

On Nina's negligent failure-to-warn claim under Florida law, which is the strongest argument for the manufacturer's motion for summary judgment?

Explanation. Under the majority opinion, Florida law allows warning adequacy to be resolved as a matter of law when the warning is accurate, clear, and unambiguous. Repeated statements such as outdoor use only, not for homes or sleeping areas, plus explicit fire and carbon monoxide warnings, satisfy that standard under an objective reasonable person test. (Derived from Farias v. Mr. Heater, Inc. (n.d.).)