Legal Environment In the initial trial, should the jury have found that O$$Bryan was also at fault? How might this finding have affected the award of damages? Explain. Facts

Dennis Martin owned a hunting stand $($called a ladderstand$)$ made by Primal Vantage Company. The stand consisted of a platform fifteen feet above the ground with an attached ladder. Five polypropylene straps secured the stand to a tree. On a hunting trip on Martin$$s property, Kevin O$$Bryan climbed the stand$$s ladder. At that time, the stand had been affixed to the tree for five years without inspection or maintenance, and two of the straps had deteriorated and broken. When O$$Bryan reached the platform, the remaining straps broke, and the stand collapsed. O$$Bryan$$seriously injured, paralyzed from the waist down, and suffering unremitting pain$$filed a suit in a Kentucky state court against Primal Vantage, alleging product liability. A jury awarded O$$Bryan damages on a finding that the warnings accompanying the stand were inadequate. The court ordered the damages to be paid to O$$Bryan$,$ and Primal Vantage appealed.

Issue

Was the inadequacy of the warnings the proximate cause of the accident?

Decision

Yes. A state intermediate appellate court affirmed the lower court$$s order. $$Primal Vantage in the exercise of ordinary care should have been aware that the stand was unreasonably dangerous and failed to provide an adequate warning.$$

Reason

Primal Vantage asserted that it was entitled to a verdict in its favor. A label on the stand told users to inspect the stand and not to use it if any parts were damaged or missing. Primal Vantage contended that even if these warnings were inadequate, that factor was not the proximate cause of O$$Bryan$$s accident, because he admitted that he had never read them. $$The real cause,$$ the company argued, $$was Martin$$s failure to inspect and maintain the ladderstand.$$ The appellate court explained that the adequacy of a warning is measured not only by its content but also by its placement and visibility. This warning was on the back of the ladder. O$$Bryan testified that if the warning had been visible, he would have read it and would not have climbed the ladder to the platform. Ultimately, the appellate court did not rule in Primal Vantage$$s favor. The court responded to the stand maker$$s argument by citing the principle that $$except in extraordinary circumstances, the negligence of an intervening party does not relieve the manufacturer of the duty to warn adequately.$$ If a product user$$s injury results from a manufacturer$$s breach of its duty of care, the manufacturer is liable for the harm.