Johnson v. Johnson Chemical Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department · Torts

TortsProducts liabilityFailure to warnCausationProximate causefailure to warnforeseeable misuseadequacy of warnings

Facts

Julie Kono bought several cans of a roach fogger called "La Bomba" or "King Roach Spray" to use in her apartment kitchen and admitted she did not read the can's warnings before activating at least one can. A fire and explosion occurred less than a minute later, and fire-department evidence indicated that the product had been activated near a stove pilot light and that multiple cans had been triggered in the kitchen. The can warned users to put out all flames and pilot lights and to use only one can per room. Plaintiffs argued the warnings were inadequate because they did not specify the danger of explosion or flash fire and were not sufficiently effective, while the landlord was sued for allegedly allowing the roach infestation that led Kono to buy the product.

Issue

Whether a plaintiff who admits she did not read a product's warnings may nevertheless pursue a failure-to-warn claim on the theory that the warnings were inadequate. Also, whether foreseeable misuse of the product created a triable issue against the manufacturer, distributor, and retailer, and whether the landlord's alleged negligence in allowing a roach infestation could be the proximate cause of the fire.

Rule

A manufacturer may be liable for failure to warn not only of dangers from intended use, but also of dangers arising from abnormal or unintended use when that misuse is reasonably foreseeable. In an inadequate-warning case, the plaintiff must prove causation, but a plaintiff's admitted failure to read the warning does not necessarily sever causation because adequacy depends not only on the wording's intensity but also on the prominence and effectiveness of the warning; a jury may find that a more prominent or dramatic warning would have prevented the misuse. By contrast, a defendant whose alleged negligence did not create a risk from which the accident was a normally foreseeable consequence is not liable because proximate cause is lacking as a matter of law.

🔒

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 Cleveland, Talia Mercer bought an aerosol grout sealer made by North Harbor Coatings from Lakeview Home Supply. The can warned users to keep the product away from "heat sources," but did not mention that using it near a furnace pilot light in a basement utility room could cause a flash fire; Talia sprayed it there and was injured when vapors ignited.

North Harbor argues that Talia misused the product, so it cannot be liable as a matter of law. What is the best answer?

Explanation. The majority held that misuse does not itself bar liability. A manufacturer may be liable for failing to warn of dangers arising from unintended or abnormal use when that misuse is reasonably foreseeable. Whether the basement use near a pilot light was foreseeable, and whether the warning adequately deterred it, would ordinarily be for the jury rather than resolved categorically for the manufacturer. (Derived from Johnson v. Johnson Chemical Co. (n.d.).)