Torts - Cases, Principles, and Institutions Fifth Edition, 2016a

Witt & Tani, TCPI 9. Liability without Fault?
warnings is greater than their additional printing fees alone. Some commentators have observed
that the proliferation of label detail threatens to undermine the effectiveness of warnings
altogether. See James A. Henderson, Jr. & Aaron D. Twerski, Doctrinal Collapse in Products
Liability: The Empty Shell of Failure to Warn, 65 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 265, 296-97 (1990). As
manufacturers append line after line onto product labels in the quest for the best possible warning,
it is easy to lose sight of the label’s communicative value as a whole. Well-meaning attempts to
warn of every possible accident lead over time to voluminous yet impenetrable labels-too prolix to
read and too technical to understand.
By contrast, Ryobi’s warnings are clear and unequivocal. Three labels on the saw itself
and at least four warnings in the owner’s manual direct the user not to operate the saw with the
blade guards removed. Two declare that “serious injury” could result from doing so. . . . Ryobi
provided warnings sufficient to apprise the ordinary consumer that it is unsafe to operate a
guardless saw-warnings which, if followed, would have prevented the injury in this case.
It is apparent, moreover, that the vast majority of consumers do not detach this critical
safety feature before using this type of saw. Indeed, although Ryobi claims to have sold
thousands of these saws, Hood has identified only one fifteen-year-old incident similar to his.
Hood has thus not shown that these clear, unmistakable, and prominent warnings are insufficient
to accomplish their purpose. Nor can he prove that increased label clutter would bring any net
societal benefit. We hold that the warnings Ryobi provided are adequate as a matter of law.
. . . .
AFFIRMED.
Notes
1. Who decides when a warning is adequate? The Hood court mentions the law review article
by James A. Henderson, Jr. and Aaron D. Twerski to support the assertion that there exists such a
thing as too many warnings. The court does not, however, address the central question raised in
the article, namely: who is best positioned to decide what constitutes an adequate warning? Is it
primarily a question of fact for the jury or, as Henderson & Twerski urge, should the judge
assume an active role? Which do you think the Hood court favors?
2. Defective products with adequate warnings. Since the 1970s, Maryland’s courts have
interpreted the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A cmt. j (1965) to mean that a plaintiff’s
failure to follow an adequate warning negates any claim of design defect. See Erin O’Dea, B.
Maintaining an Unrealistic Standard: Maryland Holds It Is Not Reasonably Foreseeable for
Consumers to Fail to Follow Product Warnings, 65 MD. L. REV. 1303 (2006). This suggests that
Hood’s failure to follow the warnings would have prevented him from recovering, even if Ryobi
might have adopted a more reasonable, safer design. Maryland is one of only a couple
jurisdictions that maintain this interpretation. See Ferguson v. F.R. Winkler GMBH & Co. KG, 79
F.3d 1221(D.C. Cir. 1996); Dugan v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 447 N.E.2d 1055 (Ill. App. 1983).
582