Graves v. Church & Dwight Co.

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division · 1993 · Torts

TortsProducts liabilityFailure to warnProximate causestrict liabilityfailure to warnheeding presumptionproximate cause

Facts

William Graves suffered a spontaneous stomach rupture after drinking a baking soda-and-water mixture to relieve heartburn. The 1979 Arm & Hammer label recommended one-half teaspoon in a glass of water, but Graves consumed about 5.7 grams, roughly three times the recommended dose, and he did not read the label that night. At trial, the only claim submitted to the jury was strict liability for failure to warn, and the jury found the product defective for lack of warning about stomach rupture but found the lack of warning was not a proximate cause of Graves's consumption. Evidence showed Graves had long treated baking soda as a familiar home remedy, gave inconsistent testimony about ever reading the label, and had ignored health warnings on cigarette packages.

Issue

In a strict-liability failure-to-warn case, does a manufacturer's failure to provide an adequate warning eliminate the need for plaintiff to prove proximate causation, or does it merely create a rebuttable heeding presumption that can be overcome by evidence creating a genuine fact issue? The court also considered whether the jury instructions and interrogatories on proximate cause were erroneous and whether plaintiffs were entitled to pursue separate theories beyond inadequate warning.

Rule

In New Jersey failure-to-warn strict-liability cases, a plaintiff must still prove proximate causation. The absence of an adequate warning gives rise to a rebuttable heeding presumption that the plaintiff would have read and heeded a proper warning, but under New Jersey evidence law the presumption disappears as a directed result once the defendant introduces enough contrary evidence to create a genuine factual dispute, and the ultimate burden of persuasion remains on the plaintiff. The presumption should not be explained to the jury, and proximate cause in this setting may appropriately be analyzed under a substantial-factor formulation when concurrent causes are present.

🔒

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 drank a large amount of powdered antacid sold by Garden State Remedies after waking with severe indigestion. The package did not warn of a rare risk of esophageal tearing, and the jury found the warning inadequate. At trial, Lena admitted she never read directions on over-the-counter remedies and said she used this product the same way her family had for years.

If Lena argues that the finding of an inadequate warning automatically establishes causation in her strict-liability warning claim, how should the court rule under New Jersey law as described here?

Explanation. In a New Jersey strict-liability failure-to-warn case, proximate causation remains an essential element. The absence of an adequate warning gives rise only to a rebuttable heeding presumption, not a conclusive one. Because Lena's own testimony suggests she would not have read or followed a warning, causation remains a jury issue and the ultimate burden of persuasion stays with her.