757 F. Supp. 2d 1284
S.D. Fla.2010Background
- Plaintiff Farias purchased Mr. Heater/ Enerco propane heaters and a propane tank from Home Depot for indoor home use after a bilingual context in which she spoke Spanish and read little English.
- Plaintiff claims the heaters were unsafe for indoor use and that warnings were not provided in Spanish, allegedly causing the fire and damages to her home.
- The heaters’ packaging showed images of safe use indoors, but no Spanish warnings accompanied the English instructions.
- Plaintiff could not read English and relied on pictures; she did not receive any verbal safety instruction at the store.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing there is no legal duty to provide bilingual warnings and that the English warnings, along with packaging, were adequate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty to provide bilingual warnings | Farias asserts a duty to warn in Spanish under Stanley Industries. | Mr. Heater and Enerco contend no bilingual duty exists under Florida law. | No duty to provide bilingual warnings under Florida law. |
| Adequacy of warnings | Warnings must be bilingual or the packaging warnings are inadequate for a Spanish speaker. | Total warnings (images + English text) are clear and unambiguous; no bilingual requirement. | Warnings were accurate, clear, and unambiguous; no bilingual requirement |
| Proximate cause | Failure to warn in Spanish caused Plaintiff’s injury because she could not read English warnings. | No bilingual duty; Plaintiff's reliance on images and English warnings is not proximately caused by the warnings. | proximate cause not established due to absence of bilingual duty |
| Strict product liability | Device design defects and inadequate warnings render it unreasonably dangerous. | No defective design proven under Florida law; evidence insufficient. | Judgment for Defendants on strict product liability |
Key Cases Cited
- Tampa Drug Co. v. Wait, 103 So.2d 603 (Fla. 1958) (warning adequacy sometimes a matter of law)
- Adams v. G.D. Searle & Co., 576 So.2d 728 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991) (circumstances for legally decisive warning adequacy)
- Scheman-Gonzalez v. Saber Mfg. Co., 816 So.2d 1133 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (consideration of warning adequacy standards)
- Cassisi v. Maytag Co., 396 So.2d 1140 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981) (design defect evaluation framework in Florida)
- Force v. Ford Motor Co., 879 So.2d 103 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (design defect analysis balancing benefits and risks)
- Johns-Manville Sales Corp. v. Janssens, 463 So.2d 242 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984) (beds for design defect and risk assessment)