Adequate Warnings?

However, the heater’s warnings were central to Enerco’s defense. It argued the warnings accompanying the heater, if adequate, rendered the product nondefective under South Carolina law. It moved to disqualify Near’s expert on warnings, and it sought summary judgment in its favor. Near did not agree with Enerco’s interpretation of South Carolina law and moved to certify to the Supreme Court of South Carolina the question of whether adequate warnings preclude a design defect claim. (Federal courts must apply state law in cases like this. If the state law is unclear, the state supreme court can be asked to clarify it.)

The trial court ruled in Enerco’s favor across the board. First, it disqualified Near’s expert on warnings. It noted that Enerco “sells these heaters with numerous warnings and instructions,” and that these are displayed “on a hangtag attached to the heaters, on their packaging and in the Operating Instructions and Owner’s Manual that accompanies the heaters.” It found that while the expert claimed these warnings were inadequate, she offered no explanation of the basis for this conclusion and “offers no alternatives.” It added that she did not use a “reliable methodology” and that her opinions were based on her own “say so” without supporting evidence or proof.

Failure to Offer Evidence

The court then addressed Enerco’s motion for summary judgment. It agreed that South Carolina law was clear: adequate warnings on a product defeat a design defect claim. So, it refused to ask the South Carolina Supreme Court to address the question. And it found that, since his expert was disqualified, Near failed to show that the warnings on the Mr. Heater were inadequate:

“South Carolina law allows adequate product warnings to ‘cure’ alleged design defects. Thus, the court need not address whether a design defect existed in this case, as plaintiff has failed to offer admissible evidence, whether through expert testimony or otherwise, challenging the adequacy of the product warnings. Furthermore, plaintiff’s own experts concede that, had [Belger] followed the warnings provided, the tragic accident in which his clothing caught fire would not have occurred.”

Appeal & Certification

Near appealed to the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Richmond, Virginia. The appellate court first addressed the question of whether the South Carolina Supreme Court should be consulted on the central legal issue in the case — whether adequate warnings on a product defeat a claim that the product was improperly designed. It held that it should be consulted:

“[W]e respectfully certify the following question of law to the Supreme Court of South Carolina: Do adequate warnings preclude a design defect claim as a matter of South Carolina law?”

Next, the court took up the disqualification of Near’s expert on warnings. On this point, it affirmed the trial court’s ruling:

“Here, the district court reasonably concluded that [the expert] did not connect her theory to objective evidence. In reaching that conclusion, the court did not rely on one methodological omission in isolation. It identified several gaps showing that [the expert] did not reliably tie her general human factors principles to this specific case.”

Since the court asked the South Carolina Supreme Court for a ruling on the central legal issue in the case, the appellate court deferred a decision on Enerco’s summary judgment motion until that ruling is received.