Products Liability Law Reporter

Precious King, 43, was operating an Elite Bistro eight-quart digital pressure cooker at her home. After activating the appliance, she noticed a rattling noise coming from inside the pot. As she attempted to unplug the pressure cooker so that it could depressurize, its lid exploded from the machine. King suffered second-degree burns over 14 percent of her body, including her face, chest, stomach, and arms. She underwent treatment in a hospital burn center but has been left with keloid and general scarring. She requires regular injections to treat her keloid pain and itching.

King sued Maxi-Matic U.S.A. Inc., the pressure cooker’s importer and distributor, alleging strict liability for the appliance’s defective design. The plaintiff claimed that the pressure cooker’s lid rotated in the wrong direction and that the appliance pressurized even when the lid was not fully engaged. Suit did not claim lost income or medical expenses.

The defendant admitted liability before trial but disputed the plaintiff’s emotional distress damages. The jury awarded $4.95 million.

Citation: King v. Maxi-Matic U.S.A. Inc., No. BC 637685 (Cal. Super. Ct. Los Angeles Cnty. Oct. 22, 2018).

Plaintiff counsel: Moses A. Lebovits and Parham Nikfarjam, both of Los Angeles; and Louis L. Gertler, New Orleans.

Plaintiff expert: Tracee Short, burns, Baton Rouge, La.

Comment: In Harvey v. Golden Dragon Sourcing Ltd., 2018 WL 833595 (N.D. Miss. Feb. 12, 2018), Tonia Harvey sued the sellers and importers of a pressure cooker that allegedly exploded and injured her, claiming the product was defective. The defendants moved to dismiss on the basis that the plaintiff failed to allege a defect in the pressure cooker with adequate specificity, as required under the Mississippi Products Liability Act, Miss. Code Ann. §11-1-63. Denying the motion, the district court found that to succeed on a design defect case in Mississippi, a plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of evidence that the danger from a product’s design was known; the product failed to function as expected; and an alternative design existed that would have, to a reasonable probability, prevented the harm. Here, the court found, the plaintiff has alleged each element of a design defect claim under the products liability law. The court noted that the plaintiff has alleged various defects in the pressure cooker’s design, including defects in its locking mechanism, and has alleged that a feasible alternative design existed that probably would have prevented the harm. Consequently, the court ruled that the plaintiff’s claim may go forward. AAJ member Evan G. Allen, Montgomery, Ala.; William T. Ashley III, Starkville, Miss.; and Michael S. Smith II, Ridgeland, Miss., represented the plaintiff.