If You Don't Read a Warning, You Can't Rely on Its Inadequacy as the Cause of Your Injury
Every once in a while you come across a simple case that is a nice reminder of a basic tort concept. Today's case is Peart v. Dorel Juvenile Group, Inc., 2012 WL 11022 (5th Cir. Jan. 4, 2012), which serves as an excellent reminder about the concept of causation.
Yolanda Peart was a Stein Mart employee who was injured stocking purses at the Metairie store. She had been using a folding step stool to reach the upper shelves. Yolanda was -- like me -- "big boned." She weighed more than 250 pounds. The warning label on the stool said:
CAUTION KEEP BODY CENTERED BETWEEN THE SIDE RAILS. DO NOT OVER-REACH. SET ALL FOUR FEET ON FIRM LEVEL SURFACE. WEAR SLIP-RESISTANT SHOES.
Light Household Duty Rating Working Load: 200 lbs.
Id. at *1. Although Yolanda filed suit alleging defects in design, manufacture, and warnings, she ultimately abandoned all theories of liability except one: that the warning was defective because it did not warn that the stool had a limited useful life and that it should be regularly inspected.
The trial court granted summary judgment, and the Fifth Circuit affirmed, based on this simple fact: Yolanda testified that she never read the warning labels.
As the Fifth Circuit explained, Yolanda bore the burden of proof on causation, i.e., that but-for the inadequate warning, the accident would not have occurred. But if she never read the warnings, it doesn't matter what the warnings said -- they never could have prevented her injury because she never would have read them.
Too often, courts try to avoid a seemingly harsh result by refusing to apply this simple "but-for" causation test. But the Fifth Circuit got it exactly right, and this case is a good reminder for defense lawyers at the start of a new year to pay attention to the basics.
