Product Liability


Update by Leslie Hayes Russo


Leslie Hayes Russo received her law degree from the Columbia School of Law at Catholic University, where she was a member of the Law Review. She served as law clerk to Hon. Theodore G. Bloom of the Court of Special Appeals (retired). Ms. Russo has previously served as legislative assistant and speechwriter to U.S. Senator Patrick J. Leahy and clerk to Hon. Ronald J. Wortheim, D.C. Superior Court. Her recent publications include, “Final Judgments and Interlocutory Appeals, “Appellate Practice for the Maryland Lawyer: State and Fed- eral” (1st Ed. 1994 & 2nd Ed. 2001, MICPEL), “Can We Appeal Now?”, Trial Reporter, Summer 2000, “Brewster v. Woodhaven Building and Development: Immediate Appeals Now Permitted of Orders Transferring Circuit Court Actions for Improper Venue,” Trial Reporter Fall 2000. Ms. Russo is the Chair of MTLA’s recently formed Publication Committee. Of Counsel to Israelson, Salsbury, Clements & Bekman, L.L.C., Ms. Russo concentrates her trial and appellate practice on civil litigation, with an emphasis on personal injury.


HALLIDAY v. STURM: COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS HOLDS RISK-UTILITY TEST INAPPLICABLE TO STRICT LIABILITY HANDGUN CLAIM WHERE HANDGUN DID NOT “MALFUNCTION” NOTWITHSTANDING PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM THE FIREARM WAS DEFECTIVELY DESIGNED DUE TO THE ABSENCE OF A READILY AVAIL- ABLE CHILD-RESISTANT TRIGGER LOCK. FATHER’S STORAGE OF GUN UNDER MATTRESS WITHOUT MAGAZINE FURTHER HELD TO BE NON-FORESEEABLE MISUSE AS A MATTER OF LAW.


In Halliday v. Sturm,1 an en banc, split


decision (7-2) of the Court of Special Appeals, now pending before the Court of Appeals,2


the risk-utility test3 was held


inapplicable to a strict liability claim against a handgun manufacturer because the handgun did not “malfunction,” not- withstanding the plaintiff’s contention that the gun was defectively designed be- cause it did not come equipped with a readily available child-resistant trigger


1 138 Md. App. 136, 770 A.2d 1072 (2001). 2


3


Certiorari was reported to have been denied at 357 Md. 482, 745 A.2d 436 (2000), but was later granted.


The factors to be considered under the risk- utility test are: (1) the usefulness and desir- ability of the product–its utility to the user and to the public as a whole; (2) the safety aspects of the product–the likelihood that it will cause injury and the probable serious- ness of the injury; (3) the availability of a substitute product that would meet the same need and be safer; (4) the ability of the manu- facturer to eliminate the unsafe character of the product without impairing its usefulness or making it too expensive to maintain its utility; (5) the ability of the product’s user, through the exercise of care, to avoid the danger; (6) the user’s anticipated awareness of the dangers inherent in the product and their avoidability, because of public knowl- edge of the obvious condition of the prod- uct, or the existence of suitable warnings or instructions; and (7) the ability of the manu- facturer in spreading the loss by setting the price of the product or carrying liability in- surance. Zeigler v. Kawasaki Heavy Indus- tries, Ltd., 74 Md. App. 613, 624-625, 539 A.2d 701 (1988); Klein v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., 92 Md. App. 477, 608 A.2d 1276 , cert. denied, 328 Md. 447,486, 614 A.2d 973 (1992).


4


lock. The Court of Special Appeals fur- ther held that the parent’s misuse of the handgun—stored under a mattress with- out its ammunition magazine—precluded recovery as a matter of law. Jordan Garris, a three-year old, suffered a fatal bullet wound to the head as a result of the accidental discharge of a handgun found under his father’s mattress.4


His


father, Clifton Garris (“Garris”), had re- moved and separately stored the magazine but the child located both pieces and man- aged to assemble them. Wrongful death and survivor’s claims were filed by the child’s mother, Melissa Halliday (“Halliday”) in the Circuit Court for Bal- timore City against the handgun manufacturer, Sturm, Ruger & Co., Inc. (“Sturm”) alleging, inter alia,5


that the handgun was defectively designed for fail- 4


The handgun was a Ruger P89 magazine- fit, automatic loading, recoil operated hand- gun. 138 Md. App. at 141, 770 A.2d at 1075. It had been stored there for ready availability in the event the home was in- truded. Id.


5


Halliday also pursued claims of inadequate warnings and instructions regarding the op- eration of a hand gun. However, this issue was not pursued on appeal. 138 Md. App. at 142, 145, 770 A.2d at 1075, 1077. The Court of Special Appeals stated that Halliday had admitted at oral argument that the warn- ings provided were adequate. Id. at 147 n.2, 770 A.2d at 1070 n.2. In her Brief to the Court of Appeals, Halliday disputed the con- cession and urged the inadequacy of the warnings remained relevant to Sturm’s claim of misuse for failure to adhere to warnings in its instruction booklet. Halliday v. Sturm, Ruger & Co., Inc., Sept. Term 2001, Petitioner’s Brief, at 1 n.1.


Trial Reporter


ure to include a child-resistant trigger lock as a safety device.6


that the warnings and instructions were inadequate to avert the accident.7


Halliday also claimed In its


opinion from the bench, the trial court acknowledged that if Sturm had used a protective device “known about for a hun- dred years,”8 prevented.9


the accident could have been It also acknowledged that the


father’s placement of the gun under a mattress supported the inference that the father had an expectation that the gun would not be found and that his removal of the magazine clip demonstrated some indication of an effort “to make this in-


6 138 Md. App. at 141-142, 770 A.2d at 1075. 7 Id.


8


The trial court reviewed a Smith & Wesson handgun marketed in the 1880s that had a child-resistant cap. The photograph was la- beled, “Smith & Wesson childproof hand- gun, circa 1894.” Id. at 152, 770 A.2d at 1081.


9


138 Md. App. at 142, 770 A.2d at 1075. The trial court initially commented that the placement and content of some of Sturm’s warnings were in many ways “far from ad- equate” concerning children. 138 Md. App. at 142, 770 A.3d at 1076. However, it ques- tioned whether any warnings were necessary for a product that was designed to “kill people, pure and simple.” 138 Md. App. at 143, 770 A.2d at 1076. The warnings ad- equately advised of the dangers of serious personal injury or death which the court stated were “arguably” warnings about keep- ing guns away from children. Id. While Halliday did not pursue the issue of the ad- equacy of warnings, supra note 4, the warn- ings were deemed relevant to the issue of misuse. 138 Md. App. at 147, 173-174, 770 A.2d at 1079,1094-1095.


Fall 2001


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48