McCormack v. Hankscraft Co.

Minnesota Supreme Court · Torts

TortsProducts liabilityNegligenceExpress warrantyFailure to warnDefective designCausationAppellate review

Facts

Plaintiff, a young child, was severely burned when defendant's steam vaporizer was tipped over in her bedroom and scalding water from its jar spilled onto her body. The vaporizer's plastic top rested loosely on a glass jar, so when the unit was tipped the near-boiling water could gush out instantly; defendant's booklet and advertising described the vaporizer as safe, practically foolproof, and usable unattended in a child's room, but gave no warning that the reservoir water became scalding hot. Plaintiff's mother used and purchased the vaporizer in reliance on those representations, and defendant knew the product was primarily used for children, knew the water became hot enough to cause severe burns, knew the unit was not truly tip-proof, and knew of prior similar burns to children. Plaintiff's experts testified that inexpensive, practical alternative designs could have secured the top while still avoiding pressure buildup.

Issue

Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict imposing liability on defendant for negligence and breach of express warranty arising from the vaporizer's design and the absence of warnings. Also, whether defendant could defeat the warranty claim based on lack of notice or privity, and whether the conditional order granting a new trial should be upheld.

Rule

A manufacturer is liable in negligence to users, consumers, and persons foreseeably in the vicinity of use if it fails to exercise reasonable care in designing a product for its intended use or in giving adequate and accurate instructions and warnings against reasonably foreseeable dangers. Safety representations can constitute an express warranty when an ordinary person would understand them as factual assurances and the buyer justifiably relies on them. In personal injury product cases like this, notice and privity need not be alleged or proved on an express warranty claim, and Minnesota adopts the principles underlying strict tort liability for defective products. Foreseeable intervention by a third party is not a superseding cause.

🔒

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 Milwaukee, Nora Jensen bought a bedside mist machine made by Lakeview Home Devices for her six-year-old son. The instructions said the machine could be left running overnight and explained how vapor was produced inside a sealed chamber, but did not disclose that the water reservoir itself would reach temperatures capable of causing severe burns; after the boy bumped it, hot water spilled onto him.

If the child sues the manufacturer for negligent failure to warn, which is the strongest argument for the child?

Explanation. The majority held that a manufacturer must use reasonable care to give adequate instructions and warnings about reasonably foreseeable dangers in intended use. A jury may find a warning necessary where the true nature and gravity of the danger are not obvious to ordinary users, particularly when the manufacturer's own materials suggest safe unattended use around children. (Derived from McCormack v. Hankscraft Co. (n.d.).)