Andersen v. Teamsters Local 116 Bldg. Club, Inc.
| Decision Date | 23 February 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 10488,10488 |
| Citation | 347 N.W.2d 309 |
| Parties | Betty and John ANDERSEN, Plaintiffs and Appellees, v. TEAMSTERS LOCAL 116 BUILDING CLUB, INC., General Drivers, Helpers, Warehousemen, Dairy Employees, and Inside Workers Local Union 116, Defendants, Hysan Corporation, Defendant and Appellant. Civ. |
| Court | North Dakota Supreme Court |
Dosland, Dosland & Nordhougen, Moorhead, Minn., for plaintiffs and appellees; argued by J.P. Dosland, Moorhead, Minn.
Gjevre, McLarnan, Hannaher, Vaa, Skatvold & McLarnan, Moorhead, Minn., for Teamsters.
Vogel, Brantner, Kelly, Knutson, Weir & Bye, Fargo, for Hysan Corp.; argued by Beryl J. Levine, Fargo.
Defendant Hysan Corp. (Hysan) appealed from a district court order denying its motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or, alternatively, their motion for a new trial in a personal injury action brought by plaintiffs Betty and John Andersen.
On 14 March 1980 Betty, after returning home from work, drove to the Teamsters Hall in Fargo to pick up her husband, John. She arrived about 8:00 p.m. and joined John and several others at a table in the lounge. She wore the shoes she had on for work which were heavy, steel-toed, rubber-soled work boots. During the next hour, Betty drank two or three drinks. About 9:30 p.m. she began to dance with one of the men seated at the table. The floor had been sprinkled with a dance wax manufactured by Hysan, and while Betty was dancing she saw the Teamster Hall manager sprinkle more wax next to where she was dancing. Betty was dancing apart from her partner to some moderately tempoed music when she slipped, fell, and fractured her right wrist.
Because of her injury, Betty was in the hospital five times, had four surgeries, and had sixteen or seventeen casts or splints on her arm over a three-year period. She now has a fifty percent permanent impairment of her wrist.
Andersens brought an action against the Teamsters and Hysan alleging that the Teamsters' maintenance of the dance floor and Hysan's defective product caused Betty's injuries. Andersens alleged negligence against the Teamsters and product liability against Hysan. Andersens further alleged that Hysan negligently manufactured and packaged the wax and that Hysan did not provide sufficient instructions and warnings for its use.
The jury was given a special verdict form in which it was asked if Hysan's dance floor wax was a defective and unreasonably dangerous product, and the jury answered "No." However, in response to the question if Hysan was negligent, the jury answered "Yes." The jury determined that Betty had suffered damages of $150,000 and found Hysan fifty-five percent negligent and Betty forty-five percent negligent. 1 The jury further found no negligence against the Teamsters and denied damages to John for loss of consortium.
Hysan's appeal raised several issues. However, we will identify and consider only those issues that are dispositive.
Hysan argued primarily that the special jury verdict finding the product not defective and at the same time finding Hysan fifty-five percent negligent is inconsistent and irreconcilable as a matter of law.
A seller or manufacturer of a product may incur liability under the doctrine of products liability in two ways. A product is defective within the meaning of products liability if it is unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer or to his property. Johnson v. American Motors Corp., 225 N.W.2d 57, 66 (N.D.1974) (adopting Restatement (Second) of Torts Sec. 402A). A product may also be defective if the manufacturer or seller has reason to anticipate a danger from the use of the product and fails to give an appropriate warning. Schmidt v. Plains Electric, Inc., 281 N.W.2d 794, 802 (N.D.1979); 63 Am.Jur.2d Products Liability Sec. 131 (1972).
The duty to provide appropriate warning may be subdivided into a duty to provide appropriate directions for safe use, both intended and reasonably anticipated, and a duty to warn against dangers inherent with misuse. Seibel v. Symons Corp., 221 N.W.2d 50, 54-55 (N.D.1974); Olson v. A.W. Chesterton Co., 256 N.W.2d 530, 535 (N.D.1977). As we noted in Seibel, directions and warnings serve different purposes. Directions promote effective use, warnings promote safe use. Thus, directions for use which "merely tell how to use the product ... do not necessarily satisfy the duty to warn." Seibel, supra, at 55. In addition, the directions and warnings must be adequate regarding their clarity, completeness, and method of communication. Ibid.
The failure to give proper instructions or to adequately warn are grounds for a cause of action in a products liability matter. It is recognized in NDCC Secs. 28-01.1-06(2) and 28-01.1-02(1)(d). 2 See also 1A Frumer and Friedman, Products Liability, Duty to Warn, Sec. 8.05, et seq.
Our review of the authorities and case law compels us to conclude that in products liability actions the manufacturer's liability is not necessarily eliminated upon a jury finding that the product was not defective or "unreasonably dangerous." 3 Thus, the manufacturer of a product can be held liable even though the product itself is not defective or "unreasonably dangerous," if the injuries were sustained as a result of misuse of the product because the instructions or directions were not adequate or the warnings were not properly given.
The special verdict forms in the instant case were approved by all parties involved. 4 In retrospect we would have no hesitation to say that the instructions and special interrogatories could have been more specific. Also, if additional special interrogatories had been submitted to the jury inquiring whether or not proper directions on the use of the product and adequate warnings were given, conceivably, the issues under consideration would be nonexistent. If the jury answered "Yes" in response to such interrogatories, meaning that proper directions and warnings were given, the general verdict of liability in this case would be inconsistent with the special interrogatory, particularly if the jury had found that the product was not defective or "unreasonably dangerous." However, if the jury answered "No," meaning that the proper instructions or directions or warnings were not given, such answer would be consistent with the general verdict finding the defendant liable.
This Court, in Hogan v. Knoop, 191 N.W.2d 263, 269 (N.D.1971), before Restatement of Law (2d) Sec. 402A was adopted, referred to Rule 49(b), North Dakota Rules of Civil Procedure, and then observed that in instances where the answers to interrogatories are consistent with each other, but some of them are inconsistent with the general verdict, the court was at liberty to direct the judgment in accordance with the answers. In substance, the Court said that an effort must be made to reconcile the jury special verdict, if possible, with the general verdict if the evidence supports the general verdict. The evidence in the instant case supports the general verdict, as explained infra.
Hysan, for its position, relied heavily upon Halvorson v. American Hoist & Derrick Co., 307 Minn. 48, 240 N.W.2d 303 (1976), a products liability action involving special interrogatories. In Halvorson the jury answered the special interrogatories, in pertinent part, as follows:
"QUESTION NO. 1: At the time the truck-crane left the American and Derrick Company, was it in a defective condition, unreasonably dangerous. . .?
Answer: No.
. . . . . .
"QUESTION NO. 5: Was American Hoist and Derrick Company negligent in the design, manufacture, inspection or testing of the crane?
Answer: Yes.
"QUESTION NO. 6. Was such negligence a direct cause of plaintiff's injury?
Answer: Yes."
It becomes quite clear in examining these questions and answers that they are irreconcilable, but in the instant case the special interrogatories or verdicts are not irreconcilable. The jury found the product not to be "defective and unreasonably dangerous," but, as has been pointed out earlier, the manufacturer can still be held liable if it failed to give adequate instructions, directions or warnings. The jury was instructed that "When considering whether the product ... was defective and unreasonably dangerous, you may consider ... the avoidability of injury by care and use of the product including the effect of instructions or warnings ...."
Halvorson is not very helpful to the instant case because the jury found that directions and warnings were given and the issue was decided favorably to the defendant. Furthermore, Halvorson was partially overruled on other grounds in Holm v. Sponco Mfg., Inc., 324 N.W.2d 207 (Minn.1982).
In Wagner v. International Harvester Co., 611 F.2d 224 (8 Cir.1979), the court applied Minnesota law to a products liability action involving special verdicts. The jury answered the special verdict questions as follows:
"1. Was International Harvester Company negligent in its
design, testing, or manufacture of the 500C tractor with
reference to its stability or the use of a left foot
decelerator
Yes
-------------
'Yes' or 'No'
"2. Was such negligence a direct cause of the accident and
resulting injury to Charles P. Wagner
Yes
-------------
'Yes' or 'No'
"3. Was the design of the 500C tractor defective by reason of
its being designed and equipped with a left foot decelerator?
No
-------------
...To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Davidson v. Prince, 900461-CA
... ... Western Fasteners, Inc., 33 Colo.App. 396, 522 P.2d 596 (1974); Gorham ... 2d 850, 855, 371 N.Y.S.2d 663 (1975); Andersen v. Teamsters Local 116 Bldg. Club, 347 N.W.2d ... ...
-
Sprynczynatyk v. General Motors Corp.
... ... v. Sunshine Supermarket, Inc., 753 F.2d 321, 324 (3d Cir.1985). In the ... Corp., 345 N.W.2d 349 (N.D.1984); Andersen v. Teamsters Local 116 Building Club, Inc., 347 ... ...
-
Butz v. Werner
... ... World Wide, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, and Cass Oil Co., ... Based upon experience (see Andersen v. Teamsters Local 116 Building Club, Inc., 347 ... ...
-
Stover v. Lakeland Square Owners Ass'n
... ... Farmington Motor Inn, Inc., 159 Conn. 576, 581, 271 A.2d 94, 96-97 (1970); ... 830, 847, 353 N.W.2d 715, 726 (1984); Andersen v. Teamsters Local 116 Bldg. Club, Inc., 347 ... ...
-
Renewed look at the duty to warn and affirmative defenses.
...warranty theories are seldom litigated, and this article does not address them. (5.) See Andersen v. Teamsters Local 116 Bldg. Club, 347 N.W.2d 309, 311 (N.D. 1984). (6.) Duane v. Oklahoma Gas & Elec. Co., 833 P.2d 184, 286 (Okla. 1992); Long v. Deere & Co., 715 P.2d 1023, 1029 (Kan......