Lilybet Farias v. Mr. Heater, Inc.
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 12749
| 11th Cir. | 2012Background
- Farias sued Defendants Mr. Heater, Enerco, and Home Depot for strict products liability and negligent failure to warn about indoor use of propane gas-fired infrared heaters.
- She alleged inadequate warnings and sought bilingual (Spanish) warnings for Miami’s Hispanic community.
- The district court granted summary judgment for defendants and denied Farias's Rule 59 motion for reconsideration.
- Florida law imposes a duty to warn for inherently dangerous products; warnings can be decided as a matter of law if accurate, clear, and unambiguous.
- The district court held the English warnings adequate as a matter of law; Farias’s arguments about bilingual warnings and marketing to Hispanics did not create a jury question.
- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed, holding the English warnings were adequate as a matter of law and distinguishing Stanley Indus. on the lack of targeted Hispanic marketing evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are the English warnings adequate as a matter of law? | Farias argues warnings are ambiguous and inadequate. | Warnings are accurate, clear, and unambiguous. | Yes; warnings adequate as a matter of law. |
| Does Florida law require bilingual warnings? | Florida law imposes bilingual warnings for Spanish-speaking users. | Florida law does not automatically require bilingual warnings. | Not necessary to decide; English warnings hold. |
| Should the case be sent to a jury to evaluate warnings? | Warnings should be for jury to decide given circumstances. | Warnings are adequate as a matter of law. | Affirmed as to lawfulness of warnings; no jury question. |
| Is the Stanley Indus. reasoning applicable to this case? | Marketing to Hispanic community creates jury question. | Case facts distinguish Stanley; no targeted marketing here. | Distinguishable; no jury question. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rodriguez v. New Holland North America, Inc., 767 So. 2d 543 (Fla. 3d Dist. Ct. App. 2000) (duty to warn where dangers are not obvious)
- Felix v. Hoffmann-LaRoche, Inc., 540 So. 2d 102 (Fla. 1989) (warnings may be resolved as law if accurate and unambiguous)
- Scheman-Gonzalez v. Saber Mfg. Co., 816 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. 4th Dist. Ct. App. 2002) (warnings must convey potential harms with sufficient clarity)
- Byrnes v. Honda Motor Co., Ltd., 887 F. Supp. 279 (S.D. Fla. 1994) (reasonable-person standard governs adequacy of warnings)
- Stanley Indus., Inc. v. W.M. Barr & Co., 784 F. Supp. 1570 (S.D. Fla. 1992) (marketing to Hispanic audience can create jury question)