Daniel v. Coleman Company Inc.,
Filed March 26, 2010
Cite as 08-35592 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

Court Absolves Manufacturer of Post-Sale Duty in Clients’ Wrongful Death

The case stemmed from a wrongful death lawsuit filed by Marie Daniel on behalf of her husband and her father, Melvin Daniel and Fred Ramiskey.

Court records show that in September 2006, Melvin Daniel, Fred Ramiskey, and a friend, Robert Haney, went on a hunting trip in Chambers Lake area near Packwood, Washington. The three men stayed in Daniel’s camper.

Because it was cold, the three campers used a heater, a Coleman Powermate 5045, owned by Haney. According to its label, the heater operates using a 20-pound or larger propane tanks and is rated at up to 45,000 Btu of heat output. It also includes product instructions which direct users to “open the propane tank fully and to relight the heater if the flame does not glow red.”

Haney saw the warning but did not read its contents. That night, Daniel and Ramiskey died of carbon monoxide poisoning. Haney survived. In December 2006, Marie Daniel filed wrongful death claims under Washington law against Delaware-based Coleman Company, Inc., manufacturer of the Coleman Powermate 5045.

Daniel claimed that Coleman should be held liable due to the following reasons:

• That the company failed to provide adequate warnings at the time of manufacture
• That Coleman failed to issue post-manufacture warning of the risk associated with Powermate 5045 despite knowledge of other incidents involving the heater
• That the heater was defectively designed and lacked alternative design features to make it safe

However during the hearing, the district court dismissed Daniel’s claim on post-sale duty to warn but allowed other claims to proceed. The court also heard five other incidents involving eight people who died of carbon monoxide poisoning while using the Powermate 5045 in enclosed spaces.

After trial, the jury found that the Coleman Powermate 5045 was “reasonably safe in its design and time-of manufacture warnings”.

Daniel moved for a new trial, claiming that the district court erred in dismissing the post-duty to warn claim and that its evidentiary rulings were erroneous and pre-judicial.

The district court denied the motion and Daniel made an appeal.

During review, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal held that Daniel’s claim that Coleman had no post-sale duty to warn. Further, it found that Daniel failed to present evidence of new and distinct danger that arose after the point of sale.

The appeals court therefore made the following important findings on Daniel’s issues and arguments:

• That the manufacturer had no post sale duty to warn of carbon monoxide poisoning since the consumer knows the risks before sale and the heater was sold with warning that, if followed, would prevent poisoning.
• That the evidence presented to prove notice or knowledge that the manufacturer had knowledge of other similar incidents were sufficient but are not likely to be admissible to prove design defects and negligence claims because the heaters involved in those incidents had different warning language and smaller that the one involved.
• That it was not prejudicial to exclude test results for indoor heater and warning labels since Daniel was allowed to present other evidence to prove that the manufacturer knew that its heaters generate increased levels of carbon monoxide when fuel flow is reduced.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal therefore affirmed the judgment of the district court.