top of page



defective PRODUCT


the case

Plaintiff was removing materials from a hard wood floor using a chemical substance and a floor scrubber machine. A fire started and plaintiff suffered severe burns requiring hospitalization, intensive treatment, and various subsequent plastic surgeries. Plaintiff contended that the substance was not appropriate for the use intended, there was a failure to properly warn, and there was a design defect by the scrubber manufacturer. Plaintiff also contended that the retailer was liable under strict liability. Defendant contended that the chemical substance was appropriate for its intended use, was not defective, and there was no failure to warn. Defendant contested that their product was not the cause of the fire, but rather the fire was due to a combination of material which was being removed; chemical substances which were not chemical components of manufacturers product; of dust that resulted from the use of the scrubber; and the scrubber as the source of ignition. 

bottom of page