JAMES LAWRENCE KING, District Judge.
Plaintiff filed suit against Defendants, seeking recovery for fire damage to her home, which she alleges was caused by propane heaters she purchased from Home Depot that had been manufactured by Mr. Heater, Inc. ("Mr. Heater") and Enerco Group, Inc. ("Enerco").
Defendants motion is predicated on the belief that Plaintiffs claims of strict product liability and negligent failure to warn are barred as a matter of law. (DE #29 at 3). Specifically, Defendants suggest that under Florida law there is no legal duty mandating that the heaters purchased by Plaintiff contain bilingual warnings. Without such a duty, Defendants contend that failing to include bilingual warnings cannot result in liability for inadequate warnings. (D.E. #29 at 10). Defendants also assert that, even if such a bilingual warning were necessary, at least one of the accompanying propane tanks "contained clear, conspicuous, and explicit warnings in both English and Spanish that it was not intended for indoor use and was not to be used or stored inside a building, garage, or enclosed area." (DE #29 at 3). Because Plaintiff did not read these Spanish warnings, they contend that Plaintiffs claims are barred for lack of proximate cause.
In contrast, Plaintiff contends that summary judgment is inappropriate because there are factual issues that must be decided by a jury. Plaintiff, in reliance on a case decided by the Honorable Federico Moreno, Stanley Industries, Inc. v. W.M. Barr & Co., Inc., 784 F.Supp. 1570
After reviewing the written pleadings and deposition testimony and considering the legal arguments presented by the parties, the Court finds that there are no genuine issues of material fact precluding entry of summary judgment and that Defendants' motion must be granted.
The product in this case is a gas-fired infra-red heater (the "Heater"), designated as Model MH24T by its Cleveland-based manufacturers, Mr. Heater and Enerco. It consists of a portable reflector that produces heat once connected to a separately sold propane tank.
During the relevant time, Plaintiff, a naturalized American citizen who was Cuban-born, owned a home in Cutler Bay, Florida. She had lived in the United States for approximately six years, but spoke little English and could read even less. On the evening of February 5, 2009, it was unseasonably cold, which was exacerbated by the failure of her home's central heating. Plaintiff left her home to buy a heater at Home Depot in Miami, Florida. The first Home Depot which Plaintiff visited did not have any heaters, and Plaintiff was directed by a Home Depot employee to another nearby Home Depot in Miami.
Upon arrival at the second Home Depot, Plaintiff spoke in Spanish to a Home Depot employee who, upon Plaintiffs request, informed Plaintiff where she could locate the last two heaters for sale in the store. Farias Dep. 27-28. Plaintiff was looking to purchase a heater solely for in-home use. Upon locating the heaters, Plaintiff examined the product packaging to gauge their appropriate use. While Plaintiff could not read the English words on the Heaters' packaging, she nonetheless viewed the graphic depictions on the box, which indicated locations constituting safe consumer use for the Heaters. (DE #37-2); Farias Dep. 29, 74-76. Plaintiff claims two of these pictures depicted individuals using the Heater inside a garage and inside a warehouse. Based on this, Plaintiff assumed that the Heaters were safe to use inside her home. She therefore purchased the Heaters, as well as one propane gas tank to be used in conjunction with one of the Heaters—Plaintiff already had another propane heater at her home to be used in conjunction with the other Heater. No one at Home Depot verbally instructed Plaintiff on the safe operation of the Heaters or the accompanying propane tanks.
When Plaintiff returned home, she attached the Heaters to the propane gas tanks by referring to the images contained within the owner's manual accompanying the Heaters. She asserts that she did not follow the written English directions because she could not read English.
There were no accompanying written instructions in Spanish regarding appropriate usage of the Heaters.
Plaintiff, upon completing the assembly, positioned one of the Heaters in her bedroom and the other in her living room, two to three feet away from her sofa. She watched some television that night and, sometime after midnight, switched off the Heater located in her living room and, just before falling asleep, lit the other Heater located in her bedroom. Within several hours of falling asleep, Plaintiff was awakened by coughing, caused by the smoke pouring into her bedroom from fire in her the living room. Her house was on fire. Plaintiff was told by the firefighters who responded to the scene that the Heater in the living room was the origin of the fire.
Plaintiff filed suit against the Defendants on November 17, 2009 in state court, stating individual causes of action against each of the three Defendants for strict product liability and negligence. On December 21, 2009 Defendants removed Plaintiffs suit to federal court on the basis of this Court's diversity jurisdiction. Since that time, the parties have conducted discovery in accordance with the Court's Scheduling Order. The discovery deadline having passed, Defendants filed their Motion for Summary Judgment.
Summary judgment is appropriate where the pleadings and supporting materials establish that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56; Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). An issue is "genuine" if there is sufficient evidence such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for either party. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). A fact is "material" if it may affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law. Id. If the record as a whole could not lead a rational fact-finder to find for the nonmoving party, there is no genuine issue of material fact for trial. See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986).
The moving party—here, Defendants— bears the burden of pointing to the part of the record that shows the absence of a
Florida case law imposes a duty on manufacturers to warn in certain circumstances. See Advance Chem. Co. v. Harter, 478 So.2d 444, 447 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). As noted by the Honorable Federico Moreno in Stanley Industries, Inc.,
784 F.Supp. 1570, 1574 (S.D.Fla. 1992) (citing Johns-Manville Sales Corp. v. Janssens, 463 So.2d 242, 248-49 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)).
Florida cases interpreting this duty have held, however, that a manufacturer's failure to comply may not result in liability "where the person to whom [a] manufacturer owes a duty to warn . . . has not read the label, an inadequate warning cannot be the proximate cause of the plaintiffs injuries." Lopez v. S. Coatings, Inc., 580 So.2d 864, 865 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991) (citing Ashby Div. of Consol. Aluminum v. Dobkin, 458 So.2d 335, 337 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). See also Clark v. ODV Holding Co., 34 So.3d 252 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (affirming grant of summary judgment to the defendant where plaintiff did not read the safety warnings and thus could not establish proximate cause). The issues presented are therefore two-fold: 1) whether a manufacturer has a duty to provide fair and adequate warnings in Spanish of dangerous propensities of its products; and 2) whether a Spanish-speaking plaintiff can establish proximate cause where she cannot read the English warnings provided by the manufacturer.
As noted above, Plaintiffs negligence claim rests upon an asserted obligation of Defendants to provide Spanish-language warnings and instructions with the Heaters purchased by Plaintiff. Plaintiff cites no statutory basis for such an obligation. Indeed, the only basis identified by Plaintiff emanates from an 18-year-old decision by the Honorable Federico Moreno of the Southern District of Florida: Stanley Industries, Inc. v. W.M. Barr & Co., Inc., 784 F.Supp. 1570 (S.D.Fla.1992).
Ostensibly, Stanley Industries contains facts similar to the above-styled matter. In that case, a fire occurred at an industrial plant after two Spanish-speaking employees used rags soaked in linseed oil to perform their duties. The linseed oil, purchased from Home Depot, was packaged in a can that contained only English warnings, which neither of the Spanish-speaking employees read. Both employees testified "that they would have sought more information on how to use the product if the label contained warnings in Spanish concerning the flammability of the product." Stanley Indus., Inc., 784 F.Supp. at
Similar to the plaintiff in Stanley Industries, Plaintiff here argues that summary judgment here is inappropriate because 1) Defendants failed to include bilingual warnings; and 2) the adequacy of the warnings provided by Defendants is a factual issue that must be determined by a jury. The Court will consider each argument in turn.
According to Plaintiffs "human factors" expert, William Vigilante,
The record, however, reflects that Plaintiff made no effort to understand the instructions contained with the manual. When asked at deposition whether she recognized any words indicating danger in the manual, she stated she did not think she read the manual at all. Farias Dep. at 52:5-19. Instead, she simply looked at the images contained within the manual to determine how to connect the heater to the propane tank.
Upon consideration of the relevant case law, the Court finds that, as a matter of law, Mr. Heater and Enerco had no duty to provide bilingual warnings in this instance. L.A. Fitness Int'l, LLC v. Mayer, 980 So.2d 550, 557 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (holding that duty is a "question of law to be determined solely by the court."). Unlike Stanley Industries, Inc. in which Judge Moreno decided that the defendant had advertised in Miami's Hispanic media
Additionally, as has been previously noted by federal courts sitting in Florida, "there is no indication that Florida law imposes a duty on manufacturers and sellers to provide bilingual warnings on consumer products." Medina v. Louisville Ladder, Inc., 496 F.Supp.2d 1324, 1329 (2007). Because the above-styled matter is before this Court on the basis of diversity, Florida substantive law controls any decision that this Court might make. See Esfeld v. Costa Crociere, S.P.A., 289 F.3d 1300, 1306 (11th Cir.2002) (noting that under the Erie doctrine, federal courts sitting in diversity apply state substantive law and federal procedural law). It would therefore be improper for this Court to expand the bounds of product liability or negligence beyond what Florida courts themselves have found appropriate in this regard. Accord Medina, 496 F.Supp.2d at 1329-30. Insomuch as Stanley Industries stands for the contrary proposition, this Court refuses to follow in its footsteps. Without a duty to provide bilingual warnings, it stands to reason that there can be no negligence on the part of any of Defendants in this instance, regardless of whether Plaintiffs failure to read the English warnings vitiates the element of proximate cause.
Secondarily, Plaintiff contends that the graphic depictions on the Heaters' packaging were themselves inadequate, both in content and in relation to the English warnings contained within the owner's manual.
The Court, however, need not resolve these factual discrepancies as they are not dispositive. Having already concluded that the warnings were not required to be printed in Spanish, Plaintiffs claim that she would have read them had they been in Spanish is not material. The reality is that Plaintiffs willingness to read Spanish warnings has no correlation with her refusal to read the English warnings or to heed the indications of danger that she witnessed even in her cursory examination.
What is dispositive is the adequacy of the product warnings provided by Defendants Mr. Heater and Enerco. Plaintiff suggests that the adequacy of those warnings is an issue for the jury on the sole basis of the adequacy of the graphic depictions contained on the Heaters' packaging. Tampa Drug Co. v. Wait, 103 So.2d 603, 609 (Fla. 1958); Upjohn Co. v. MacMurdo, 536 So.2d 337, 339 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988); Stanley Indus., 784 F.Supp. at 1575-76 (holding that adequacy of warnings provided only in English is jury issue where item was marketed to Hispanic population).
However, there are occasions under Florida law when the adequacy of a warning is a question of law for the judge to decide. These occasions are limited to circumstances in which the warning is "accurate, clear, and unambiguous." Felix v. Hoffmann-LaRoche, Inc., 540 So.2d 102 (Fla.1989); Adams v. G.D. Searle & Co., 576 So.2d 728 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Scheman-Gonzalez v. Saber Mfg. Co., 816 So.2d 1133 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002).
As a matter of law, the Court finds that it must consider the totality of the warnings provided by Defendants Mr. Heater and Enerco. The totality of those warnings therefore includes not just the graphic depictions relied upon by Plaintiff, but also the English written instructions which Plaintiff was both unable and unwilling to read. Any other holding would be contrary to the Court's refusal to require a manufacturer to provide bilingual warnings instructions.
Considering the combination of the external depictions on the Heaters' packaging and the written instruction accompanying the Heaters, the Court finds that the warnings provided by Defendants Mr. Heater and Enerco were accurate, clear, and unambiguous. As reflected in the exhibits attached by Plaintiff, the packaging of the Mr. Heater contained six visual depictions of places or situations where, presumably, the Heaters could be safely used. While those depictions are labeled, the Court need not decide whether that language made the warnings provided by Defendant ambiguous; because Plaintiff admitted that she could not read English at the time she purchased the Heaters, those labels are irrelevant to consideration of her claims.
Instead, it is clear to the Court that any purchaser of the Heaters manufactured by Mr. Heater and Enerco who read the instructions would have understood the clear and unambiguous warnings not to use the Heaters indoors in an enclosed space.
As a final matter, the Court addresses Plaintiffs strict product liability claim. Neither side has briefed this issue at length, yet the record is sufficiently developed to permit this Court to adjudicate the matter. There are five elements for a strict product liability action under Florida law: the plaintiff must prove that (1) a product (2) produced by a manufacturer (3) was defective or created an unreasonably dangerous condition (4) that proximately caused (5) injury. McCorvey v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 298 F.3d 1253, 1257 (11th Cir.2002).
Florida courts apply the following two-pronged test to determine whether a plaintiff has established a defective design:
Cassisi v. Maytag Co., 396 So.2d 1140, 1145 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981) (internal citations omitted). See also Force v. Ford Motor Co., 879 So.2d 103, 106-08 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). Whether a design is defective is an objective consideration that is not limited to any specific user's viewpoint. Jennings v. BIC Corp, 181 F.3d 1250, 1255 (11th Cir.1999) (citing Hobart Corp. v. Siegle, 600 So.2d 503, 505 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)). The burden to show that a defective design exists is on the plaintiff. Husky Indus., Inc. v. Black, 434 So.2d 988, 991 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983) (citing Ford Motor Co. v. Hill, 404 So.2d 1049 (Fla.1981)).
The Court concludes that Plaintiff cannot satisfy its burden under Black to demonstrate a defective design of the Heaters. Indeed, there is no record evidence supporting Plaintiffs allegations of a defective design. As such, the Court finds judgment for Defendants proper on the issue of strict product liability.
Accordingly, the Court having read the parties' motions and legal authorities and being otherwise fully advised, it is
