On April 7, 1992, a jury verdict was returned against defendant Faberge[1] in this products liability case for serious burn injuries sustained by the minor plaintiff when she punctured a can of Aqua Net hair spray resulting in the ignition of the spray when it came into contact with the flame from a gas stove. The jury found that the valve system in the hair spray can was defective when it was distributed for sale by Faberge because it failed to operate properly and was also defective because it did not contain adequate warnings. On the separate theory of design defect in the hair spray formulation,[2] the jury found for the defendant. The jury found that those defects were the proximate cause of Alison's injuries and awarded her[3] $1,500,000.00. Defendant Faberge filed post-trial motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, see Fed.R.Civ.P. 50, and for a new trial, see Fed.R.Civ.P. 59. See also documents 179 and 203 of record. The plaintiff has filed both a reply and a brief in opposition to the defendant's motions. See documents 185 and 206 of record. Oral argument was held on August 5, 1992, and the motions are now ripe for disposition. For reasons which follow, the defendant's motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or, in the alternative, for a new trial, will be denied.
1-Should the law recognize a failure to warn as a basis for imposing strict liability on manufacturers and sellers of products? Why or why not?
2-Did Faberge violate its duty of social responsibility in the case. Explain.
3-Do you think this case was decided properly?
4-What else could Faberge have done to avoid liability?