In this age of instant consumer gratification at the click of a mouse, all of us have experienced the frustration of purchasing a product that did not work as intended.
Some of those products that we relied upon may have caused external damage to other property. But is the manufacturer always liable for a defect in its product? The short answer is it depends.
Recent Ontario jurisprudence has confirmed that the threshold for establishing manufacturing liability still depends on reliable scientific evidence and the presence of a reasonably foreseeable risk of the consequences of a defective product.
In Pelton v. Maytag, 2024 ONSC 3016 (CanLII), the subrogating insurer sued the manufacturer of its insured’s ten year old Maytag dishwasher, which had leaked during the insured’s two-week wintertime vacation absence and caused significant flood-related damage to the home. Prior to the leak, the dishwasher had functioned normally and was within its anticipated life expectancy. Notably, the homeowner (Pelton) had lowered the home thermostat to 65F prior to departure. The dishwasher had been installed against an exterior wall and the outside temperatures had plunged during the homeowners’ absence.
Through their insurer, Pelton sued both the dishwasher manufacturer (Whirlpool) and the manufacturer of the plastic component of the solenoid valve (the “valve”) in the dishwasher (Robertshaw Controls) that the homeowner alleged was defective and failed under ordinary use, leading to the water leak event and subsequent flood. Further, Pelton alleged that the Defendants had a duty to warn that the valve could fail and cause a leak due to a freezing event.
After a five-day trial, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed Pelton’s claim. The Court held that he had not proven on a balance of probabilities that there was a defect in the valve, namely plastic degradation. Further, the Court held that the valve itself is not an inherent danger and that the risk of a failure of the valve was considered remote, including during a freezing event. As a result, the Defendants did not have a duty to warn that the valve could fail and cause a leak during a freezing event.
Applied more widely, the Court’s guidance offers insight into the limits of legal blameworthiness for product manufacturers. First, the decision reiterated just how important reliable scientific evidence is when claiming manufacturing defects. Comparative exemplar testing may not be persuasive to a court where it cannot be directly and reliably connected to the affected product, such as when there is an unreasonable delay or intervening events between the allegedly defective product incident and the testing or, alternatively, material differences between the incident product and the exemplar product tested.
Second, the Court re-confirmed the scope of a manufacturer’s duty to warn. While manufacturers continue to have a duty to warn of foreseeable and probable risks, there is no basis for liability related to failing to warn of remote or possible risks. Even where there may be potential risks that may be known to manufacturers, they do not have a duty to warn of consumer-specific facts and circumstances that would be unknown to the manufacturer (e.g., vacation absences with thermostat lowering, placement of product against exterior wall and freezing events).
The key takeaway for those considering claims in product liability is to consult promptly with experienced legal counsel to determine what evidence may be required to prosecute a successful manufacturing defect claim and whether there are clearly foreseeable risks that a manufacturer should have anticipated in relation to the allegedly failed product. Failure to consider these important parameters at the outset is likely to lead to an unsatisfactory litigation outcome.