Burns v. Architectural Doors and Windows
19 A.3d 823
Me.2011Background
- Burns was injured when a closing overhead garage door struck his head at Whited Ford shop, leading to a product liability action against the installer ADW.
- The door was manufactured by Wayne-Dalton and replaced Whited’s wooden doors in 1996; ADW installed the new doors on Whited’s existing operators without a safety mechanism.
- Burns had worked at Whited since 1998 and knew doors would not stop for obstructions, having observed door-related incidents and working in a noisy, busy shop.
- Burns alleged in pleadings that the door was defective for not having a mechanism to stop or reverse when encountering an object; later pleadings framed the claim as failure to warn.
- Summary judgment motions were denied; Burns’s claim against Wayne-Dalton settled, leaving ADW as the remaining defendant; the court later limited Burns to a failure-to-warn theory.
- At trial, Burns attempted to present alternate theories (design defect, defective installation, component-parts) but the court barred these as not pleaded; the jury found no duty to warn compelling a verdict against Burns.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Burns's pleadings permitted only a failure-to-warn claim against ADW | Burns argues broader theories should be admissible. | Court properly clarified and limited to failure to warn. | Yes; court properly limited to failure to warn. |
| Whether design/installation/component-parts theories could be tried despite lack of pleading | Theories could be argued as part of product liability. | These theories were not pleaded and not permitted. | Correct to rebuff; not tried. |
| Whether the court erred in not giving a heightened duty-to-warn instruction for obvious danger | Should have given Marois-type instruction for foreseeability. | Instruction not required given Burns’s knowledge of the danger. | Instruction not required; harmless if error occurred. |
| Whether Burns established causation for the failure-to-warn claim | ADW's failure to warn caused Burns’s injury. | Burns himself knew of the danger and entered as the door closed. | No causation shown; ADW entitled to judgment on the pleaded claim. |
| Whether the trial rulings and jury instructions cumulatively supported affirmance | Rulings were errors that affected outcome. | Rulings were proper and harmless. | No reversible error; judgment affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hatch v. Me. Tank Co., 666 A.2d 90 (Me. 1995) (no duty to warn for obvious dangers unless warned otherwise)
- Marois v. Paper Converting Mach. Co., 539 A.2d 621 (Me. 1988) (duty to warn for foreseeable hazards where hazards are serious and not obvious)
- Bernier v. Raymark Indus., Inc., 516 A.2d 534 (Me. 1986) (three forms of product liability: design, manufacturing, or failure to warn)
- Johnston v. Me. Energy Recovery Co., 2010 ME 52 (Me. 2010) (notice pleading requires fair notice of the claim; case clarifies pleading standards)
- Champagne v. Mid-Me. Med. Ctr., 1998 ME 87 (Me. 1998) (notice pleading requires averment of essential elements)
- Lorfano v. Dura Stone Steps, Inc., 569 A.2d 195 (Me. 1990) (likened relation to negligence in some contexts of product liability)