Troja v. Black & Decker Manufacturing Co.

Maryland Court of Special Appeals · Torts

TortsStrict products liabilityDesign defectFailure to warnSubsequent remedial measuresExpert testimonystrict liabilitysection 402A

Facts

In 1979, Michael Troja amputated his thumb while using a 1976 Black and Decker DeWalt radial arm saw. The saw had been removed from its base and stand, the guide fence and metal base were left behind, and Troja used the saw on the floor, first with a makeshift fence and then without any fence while guiding wood with his bare hand. The owner's manual accompanied the saw and included instructions and photographs showing the proper procedure for cross-cuts with the guide fence in place, along with numerous cautions about operation. Troja claimed strict liability based on defective design for lacking an interlock that would prevent operation without the fence and failure to warn of the danger of using the saw without the fence.

Issue

Whether the trial court properly excluded Troja's expert testimony and directed a verdict on the design defect claim for lack of legally sufficient evidence of technological and economic feasibility of an alternative design. Whether the trial court also properly excluded evidence and cross-examination about later-added warnings and allowed testimony that the saw complied with federal and industry standards in effect when manufactured.

Rule

In a strict liability design defect case involving a risk that is not inherently unreasonable, the plaintiff must produce evidence sufficient for a risk-utility balancing, including evidence that the proposed safer design was technologically feasible and economically practicable at the time of manufacture. Expert testimony on feasibility must rest on an adequate factual foundation. In strict liability cases, evidence of subsequent remedial measures is not admissible to prove culpable conduct, though such evidence may be admitted for another purpose, such as proving ownership, control, feasibility if controverted, or impeachment.

🔒

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, Nora Patel lost two fingers while using a benchtop planer manufactured in 1974 by Lakefront Toolworks. She sues in strict liability, alleging the planer was defectively designed because it lacked an automatic shutoff that would disengage the blades whenever the feed guard was removed.

At trial, Nora's only design expert testifies that an automatic shutoff "could have been added" in 1974, but admits he has never designed a planer, has no drawings or prototype, did no testing, and has no data on materials, cost, consumer price, or whether the feature would interfere with normal uses. If the manufacturer moves for a directed verdict on the design defect claim, how should the court rule?

Explanation. In a strict liability design defect case involving a risk that is not inherently unreasonable, the plaintiff must present evidence sufficient for risk-utility balancing, including technological feasibility and economic practicability of the proposed alternative at the time of manufacture. Conclusory expert testimony without foundation, testing, design detail, or cost evidence is insufficient, so a directed verdict is proper. (Derived from Troja v. Black & Decker Manufacturing Co. (n.d.).)