Parties

Plaintiff v. Defendant

DONNY FRANK IVESTER, JR., Plaintiff, vs. WAL-MART STORES, INC.; WAL-MART STORES EAST, LP; and WAL-MART STORES EAST, INC., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 8:14-04521-MGL

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

Case Citation: 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79724

Facts

According to LexisNexis, the following facts are critical to the outcome of the case:

In the spring of 2003, Donny Frank Ivester, Jr., Plaintiff, purchased a gas can manufactured by Blitz, U.S.A, Inc., from Wal-Mart in Seneca, South Carolina. He used said gas can regularly (seven years) to fuel household machines at his residence (e.g., generator, lawnmower, four-wheeler, and chainsaw) without incident.

The Blitz gas can had the following warnings printed on each side: Gasoline, Danger, Extremely Flammable, Vapors can Explode, Harmful or Fatal if Swallowed, and If Swallowed, Do Not Induce Vomiting, Keep out of Reach or Use by Children (printed on other side).

Mr. Ivester took for granted that since he's a regular user of gas cans that he did not have to read the warning labels on either side.

Mr. Ivesterstarted a fire with scrap wood in a metal fire pit at a backyard barbeque on February 1, 2014. To increase the fire's power, he poured gasoline onto the wood using the gas can purchased at Wal-Mart manufactured by Blitz. As a result the vapors burst into flames, entered the gas can, and caused the gas can to explode. Mr. Ivester suffered major burns.

Mr. Ivester sued Wal-Mart for the following allegations: 1) the gas can had a design defect under the South Carolina Defective Projects Act (SCDPA) 2) manufacture's failure to warn 3) negligence, and 4) breach of the implied warranty of merchantability.

The Plaintiff's allegations are based on his improper reliance on post-distribution conduct evidence (i.e., after Plaintiff purchase gas can in 2003 (ECF No. 64 at 1.) and feels that that Defendant should have foreseen that customers would use the gas can to pour gasoline and start a fire.

Procedure

Who brought the appeal? What was the outcome in the lower court(s)?

Plaintiff, Donny Frank Ivester, Jr., sued Wal-Mart, and it went to trial in court on November 25, 2014.

Issue

According to LexisNexis, the following is the central question or questions on which the case turns:

Did the Blitz gas can sold at Wal-Mart have a design defect under the South Carolina Defective Projects Act (SCDPA) 2) manufacture's failure to warn

Was Wal-Mart negligent by selling in selling Glitz gas can product in their store that allegedly did not have proper usage warnings?

Did the Blitz gas can have a breach of the implied warranty of merchantability?

Did the Bltiz gas can have sufficient warning labels that abided by the Uniform Commercial Codes (U.C.C.) Ann. § 36-2-314(1) and Id. § 36-2-314(2)?

Can the Plaintiff provide sufficient evidence for the four claims above to rule in his favor?

Will the applicable laws of this case support the plaintiff's allegations? See applicable laws.

Applicable Laws

According to LexisNexis, the following are applicable laws that apply to this case:

Uniform Commercial Code (U.C.C.), S.C. Code Ann. § 36-2-314(1)-contains the test for the implied warranty of merchantability;

Uniform Commercial Code (U.C.C) Id. § 36-2-314(2)-"[g]oods to be merchantable must be at least such as . . . are fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used."; and

South Carolina Defective Products Act (SCDPA), S.C. Code Ann. § 15-73-10-defines the liability of seller for defective products.

Holding

How did the court resolve this issue(s), and who won?

The court granted in part (Plaintiff's failure to warn); and

The court denied in part the Defendant's motion (Plaintiff's negligence claim and breach of the implied warranty of merchantability).

Reasoning

The logic that supports the court's decision:

Wal-Mart' s failure to warn with prejudice regarding gas can; and

Plaintiff neglected to use his gas can in accordance with its ‘ordinary purposes,", and, in any event, Wal-Mart contend that they expressly warned Plaintiff of the danger the gas can posed through the warnings on the sides of the can. ECF No. 58 at 18-20.

Plaintiff's breach of warranty claim was denied, because he did not read the warning labels. He assumed he knew the risks due to former repeated uses of gas cans.

Attachment:- 2013_u.s._dist._lexis_89019_.rar