New Maritime Products Liability Case From Ninth Circuit - Curtis Oswalt v. Resolute Industries Inc.

New case involving products liability arising from a boat engine.  The case is Curtis Oswalt v. Resolute Industries Inc., 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 12114 and can be downloaded here.

The case involved a repair gone awry, eventually leading to a fire.  The repairer was sued and brought a third party complaint against the manufacturer of the equipment that cause the blaze. 

Relying on general maritime tort law, as informed by the Restatement of Torts, the court dealt with two issues:  first, products liability based on inadequate warnings and second, products liability based on defective design.

The Ninth Circuit test for inadequate warnings, from the Restatement, is:

A product “is defective because of inadequate instructions or warnings when the foreseeable risks of harm posed by the product could have been reduced or avoided by the provision of reasonable instructions or warnings . . . and the omission of the instructions or warnings renders the product not reasonably safe.” Restatement § 2(c). In general, however, “a product seller is not subject to liability for failing to warn or instruct regarding risks and risk-avoidance measures that should be obvious to, or generally known by, foreseeable product users.

The panel found an issue of fact with the design defect claim and vacated the summary judgment obtained by the manufacturer.

Side issues:  the panel allowed an award of hotel charges for the prevailing party as a loss-of-use damage.  The court acknowledged some controversy about awarding loss of use damages for a recreational vessel.

Hat tip hidden in the FN:  one of the panelists, Judge Fisher, included a reference that his former co-clerk was an adviser to the American Law Institute that drafted the Restatement provision used by the court as authority.