Products Liability Law Reporter

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals held that a plaintiff’s failure to establish a genuine issue of material fact on whether a reasonably safe alternative design was available to a drain opener manufacturer warranted summary judgment in a products liability action against the manufacturer.

Michael Taillard purchased a gallon plastic jug of Rooto Professional Drain Opener, a product that consists of approximately 93% sulfuric acid. Taillard placed the jug on the bottom rack of his grocery cart and left the store with his family. As Taillard pushed the cart, the jug fell and struck the asphalt parking lot outside the store. The cap came off, and the drain opener poured out. The product splashed onto the leg and foot of Taillard’s daughter, and Taillard also came into contact with the chemical while trying to wash it off his daughter’s skin. Taillard suffered burns, infection, and an adverse reaction to an antibiotic used to treat his condition.

Taillard sued The Rooto Corp., alleging negligence and defective design of the cap on the drain opener’s jug. The defendant moved successfully for summary judgment. 

Affirming, the Sixth Circuit noted that under Mich. Comp. Law §600.2946(2), a plaintiff pursuing a products liability claim must prove both that the product was not reasonably safe when it left the manufacturer’s or seller’s control and that an alternative production practice was available that would have prevented the harm without impairing the product’s usefulness and desirability or creating an equal or greater risk of harm to others. Here, the court found, the plaintiff failed to establish a material issue of fact on the last two elements. First, the court said that the plaintiff failed to explain how his proposed alternative design—the use of a breakable seal—would have led to fewer incidents and how it would have improved the jug’s drop resistance. The plaintiff also failed to explain why a breakable seal would not make the defendant’s product less useful or desirable even though this addition would arguably make the jug more difficult to open, the court found.

Consequently, the court held that based on these evidentiary omissions, the plaintiff had failed to present a prima facie case of defective design under Michigan law.

Citation: Taillard v. Rooto Corp., 2019 WL 4389143 (6th Cir. Sept. 13, 2019).