26. In a suit by the homeowner against the manufacturer of the furnace to recover for his injury, is the homeowner likely to prevail?

A products liability claim may be brought by a plaintiff under multiple different theories: (i) intent; (ii) negligence; (iii) strict liability; (iv) implied warranties; and (v) express warranties. The prima facie case for a products liability claim based in strict liability includes (i) a commercial supplier of a product; (ii) producing or selling a defective product; (iii) actual and proximate cause; and (iv) damages. The plaintiff must prove that the defect existed when the product left the defendant's control. For liability to attach, the product must also reach the plaintiff without substantial alteration. Generally, privity between the parties is irrelevant except for certain warranty theories of liability.

A is correct. Here, the danger of falling from a ladder was an obvious danger. Additionally, there is no indication that the furnace at issue had any particular qualities which increased the general danger of ladder use, such that the product was defective absent this warning. Therefore, the homeowner could be unlikely to prevail.

B is incorrect. Although the homeowner would be unlikely to prevail due to the obvious dangers of ladder use, the homeowner's decision to attempt the cleaning himself, rather than hiring a professional, would not be a basis for the furnace manufacturer to avoid liability. There's no indication from the facts that the furnace was not built for ordinary, routine maintenance by the homeowner, nor any indication that a professional would be in materially less danger of losing balance than the homeowner. Further, even if the homeowner's decision to attempt the cleaning himself was treated as a misuse, it would be a foreseeable misuse that would not cut short the manufacturer's liability.

C is incorrect. The failure of the furnace manufacturer to include a ladder for cleaning would not be a basis for the homeowner recovering damages, because the absence of a ladder did not make the furnace defective, nor was this failure negligence on the part of the manufacturer. Ladders are a common household item suitable for a variety of purposes and there is no indication that a hypothetical special-purpose ladder would have any greater utility or decreased risk of injury than the ladder used by the homeowner. The homeowner would be at the same risk of falling from this hypothetical ladder as the one he purchased, and therefore the furnace manufacturer would not be liable for failing to supply its own ladder with the product.

D is incorrect. The furnace manufacturer would not be liable on the basis that lack of instructions on how to clean made the furnace defective. A manufacturer is not required to warn of patent or obvious dangers. Under the facts as presented, there is no indication that it was even possible to clean the furnace without using a step ladder. Therefore, even with a warning included and followed, the homeowner would still be making use of a sufficiently tall ladder and facing the same risk of injury. The furnace manufacturer could warn at most of the need for care when standing on a high ladder, and as such a warning is obvious, there would be no obligation to include it.