Duty of Care in Products Liability Matters in Delaware

The Delaware Superior Court recently analyzed the legal duty of care for a building manufacturer after a person was injured by a concession stand window that was constructed without a latching mechanism.  In Chambers v. Canal Athletic Ass’n Inc., 2022 WL 103067, at *5 (Del. Super. Jan. 11, 2022), the Court granted summary judgment in favor of the manufacturer in holding that Plaintiff failed to show a breach of the standard of care where there was no evidence the product was defective in any way, and would not extent such legal duty to include components the manufacturer did not design, produce or install.  The Court further concluded that it was insufficient for Plaintiff to establish negligence by arguing that providing a latch would have made the concession stand safer, nor was the manufacturer required to design a product that was foolproof or incapable of producing injury.

As with general tort law, in Delaware to state a prima facie case for negligence the plaintiff must show that the defendant owed a duty of care, the defendant breached that duty, and the defendant’s breach was the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injury.  In Delaware, negligence is met when an actor fails to use care that a reasonably prudent person would take under like circumstances.  Employing the term “reasonable” leaves room for interpretation, which is why the existence of duty is generally considered an issue of law for the Court to determine. McLaughlin v. Dover Downs, Inc., 2008 WL 2943392, at *12 (Del. Super. July 17, 2008).  The duty component is a high threshold to reach, and the burden lies with the plaintiff to establish it. See RESTATEMENT (2D) OF TORTS § 395; Massey-Ferguson, Inc. v. Wells, 383 A.2d 640, 642 (Del.1978) (citing § 395 that the plaintiff holds the burden to establish that the defendant failed to exercise the care of a reasonably prudent manufacturer under these circumstances).

Delaware Courts have been careful not to overextend the duty of care for product manufacturers for every conceivable accident.  The injury in Chambers arose when the plaintiff was volunteering at the little league facility and was struck in the head when the concession stand window fell.  Plaintiff claimed the accident resulted in physical and cognitive injuries, and initially filed suit against the little league facility where the concession structure was located.  Plaintiff later amended the complaint to add the concession stand manufacturer claiming the window was defective because it was not constructed with a latching/locking mechanism.  

The Court heavily relied on the reasoning from McLaughlin where a plaintiff was injured by an automatic revolving door while exiting a hotel. Plaintiff claimed that the door manufacturer was negligent for not installing optional safety features which could have prevented injury. While the door had multiple safety features making it appropriate for use in a hotel setting, it did not have all the safety features available at the time.  The Court rejected Plaintiff’s argument, stating “[t]he fact that a product could be made safer by adding a safety device is not, without more, enough to establish that the product is defective, as a manufacturer ‘does not have a legal duty to produce a product incorporating only features representing the ultimate in safety.'” McLaughlin, 2008 WL 2943392 at *13. (citing Wicker ex rel. Estate of Wicker v. Ford Motor Co., 393 F.Supp.2d 1229, 1236 (W.D.Okla. 2005).

In Chambers, the contract between the manufacturer and the little league facility was to construct a 20x20x10 residential frame building with a steel door and two 41×64 concession windows. The manufacturer, with input for the little league facility, decided to make the concession stand windows chicken coop style doors because they were inexpensive and lightweight.  Notably, the contract did not require any locking or latching mechanisms.  The contract also provided that the athletic facility had the responsibility of obtaining a building permit for the structure, and a latch or lock if they wanted them.  

  As was held in McLaughlin, the Chambers Court explained that the scope of the legal duty owed by the manufacturer to the Plaintiff was to build the concession stand in compliance with the contract and with basic building safety requirements. Chambers. at *1. The Court refused to extend such duty based on an alleged violation of general building codes for failure to contain a latching mechanism relied on by Plaintiff’s liability expert, who testified that the delivery of the stand without a latch constituted an “unsafe building”.  The Court concluded that the Plaintiff’s argument ignored the fact that the little league facility was contractually obligated to obtain a proper permitting under the building code and complied with that requirement.

An initial finding of legal duty could allow a Plaintiff to survive summary judgment.  Defense attorneys and claims professions should be mindful of whether the alleged defect was a necessary safety measure or industry standard that was reasonably foreseeable to have proximately caused one’s injury.  Proximate cause issues also should be scrutinized based on intervening and superseding arguments for changes made to a product after delivery.  In the absence of legal duty, a negligence claim will lack a predicate foundation and be out of bounds in Delaware tort law.