Products Liability Law Reporter

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held that a couple’s manufacturing defect claim against French press manufacturer Bodum USA, Inc., could proceed where the plaintiffs presented evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact regarding their coffee maker’s alleged defect.

Sasha and Shane Norman owned a Bodum USA, Inc., French press coffee maker. While they were making coffee with their young child, the French press’s carafe shattered, causing hot coffee to explode onto his body. He required multiple medical procedures and has been left with disfigurement and scarring. The Normans sued Bodum USA, Inc., alleging the coffee maker contained a manufacturing defect. Specifically, the plaintiffs asserted that an end piece on the press’s metal coil protruded outward beyond its protective mesh, which led to a scratch on the glass carafe that made it shatter. The case was removed to federal district court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendant.

Reversing, the Fifth Circuit noted that a product failure or malfunction does not, by itself, prove a manufacturing defect. Plaintiffs must allege a specific deviation from the product’s intended design, the court found. Here, the court said, the plaintiffs have presented evidence to support their manufacturing defect claim, including an expert engineering witness, who examined and tested the press and concluded that it deviated from its intended design, causing the carafe to shatter; testimony that the plaintiffs had purchased the press in a brand-new condition and never altered it; identification of the press’s specific defect; and Bodum’s website marketing materials, which showed several coil assemblies, including ones with a protruding coil.

The court disagreed with the district court’s conclusion that the plaintiffs failed to proffer evidence sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact. Viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, the evidence the plaintiffs offered creates a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the press contained a manufacturing defect that led to the plaintiffs’ injuries. The district court’s criticism of the plaintiffs’ evidence, including the engineer’s testimony, bears on the weight of the evidence and is an issue for trial, the court concluded.

Accordingly, the court remanded.

Citation: Norman v. Bodum USA, Inc., 2022 WL 3210361 (5th Cir. Aug. 9, 2022).

Plaintiff counsel: James C. Rackley and Travis C. Headley, both of San Antonio, Texas; and AAJ member Guy L. Watts II, Austin, Texas.