Dorman v. State Industries, Inc.
292 Va. 111
| Va. | 2016Background
- In August 2007 four tenants were rendered unconscious by carbon monoxide in an apartment at Collegiate Suites; testing showed an atmospheric (open-draft) gas water heater manufactured by State Industries produced CO when bedroom doors were closed and the State air handler ran.
- Experts differed: plaintiffs’ expert (Bicknese) said the heater’s draft-hood design was unreasonably dangerous and overly sensitive to small pressure changes; State’s experts said the heater functioned normally and that improper installation, lack of combustion-air return, reduced door clearances after new carpet, and poor maintenance caused the backdraft and CO production.
- Building plans originally specified electric water heaters; an atmospheric heater was installed without State’s input and without Town-approved plan changes. Municipal and mechanical inspectors recreated the backdraft only when the heater ran, bedroom doors were closed, and the air handler ran.
- Trial court excluded failure-to-warn and T&P-valve claims but allowed the design-defect claim about the draft hood to go to the jury; it also permitted State to introduce evidence about other parties’ conduct (installation/maintenance) and evidence about prevalence of atmospheric heaters.
- Trial court gave Jury Instruction 22 (definition of superseding cause). The jury found for State on all claims; plaintiffs appealed, challenging evidentiary rulings and the superseding-cause instruction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of evidence about absence/number of other incidents/heaters | Such evidence (absence of prior injuries) improperly suggests safety; should be excluded | Evidence of number in use and industry practice is relevant to merchantability and to rebut plaintiff’s claim that all such heaters are defective | Admission not an abuse of discretion; testimony merely quantified heaters in use and was relevant to merchantability and expert opinion rebuttal |
| Admissibility of evidence that installation/maintenance were intervening causes ("empty chair"/superseding cause) | Allowing such evidence improperly shifts blame and constitutes an impermissible ‘‘empty-chair’’ defense when manufacturer’s negligence remains a proximate cause | Evidence of installation, maintenance, and carpet change were admissible to show other potential proximate causes and to support a superseding-cause defense | Trial court did not abuse discretion: State could present evidence that other factors may have superseded any manufacturing negligence; proximate cause and superseding-cause questions were for the jury |
| Jury Instruction 22 (definition of superseding cause) — correctness and support in evidence | Instruction misstated law or was unsupported; a superseding cause cannot be found because open exhaust was necessary antecedent to injury | Instruction correctly stated Virginia law and was supported by more than a scintilla of evidence that other acts could be the sole proximate cause | Instruction is a correct statement of law and supported by evidence; plaintiffs waived argument about burden-of-proof language by failing to propose alternative instruction |
| Whether evidence of industry usage/safety record was improper character evidence | Industry prevalence/safety-record evidence was prejudicial and irrelevant | Usage evidence was relevant to merchantability and to rebut the claim of universal defect | Admission appropriate; statement about number of heaters in use was relevant and not framed as a safety-record claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Hyundai Motor Co. v. Duncan, 289 Va. 147 (standard for reviewing evidentiary rulings)
- Goins v. Wendy’s Int’l, Inc., 242 Va. 333 (rule on inadmissibility of "absence of other injuries" evidence in negligence cases)
- Turner v. Manning, Maxwell & Moore, Inc., 216 Va. 245 (manufacturer duty; misuse evidence relevant)
- Jeld-Wen, Inc. v. Gamble, 256 Va. 144 (relevance of product misuse evidence in products-liability cases)
- Banks v. City of Richmond, 232 Va. 130 (intervening, unforeseeable act can supersede prior negligence)
- Chereskin v. Turkoglu, 235 Va. 448 (third-party unforeseeable act may support superseding-cause instruction)
- Williams v. Cong Le, 276 Va. 161 (approved form of superseding-cause instruction; instruction improper if unsupported by evidence)
- Kellermann v. McDonough, 278 Va. 478 (discussion of superseding cause and proximate causation)
- Williams v. Joynes, 278 Va. 57 (limits on treating intervening acts as superseding causes)