Products Liability Law Reporter

A federal district court held that dismissal was not warranted in a subrogation suit brought by an insurer against a hedge trimmer manufacturer.

Joey Williford owned a hedge trimmer manufactured by STIHL Inc. A fire occurred at Williford’s property, and an investigation revealed that a defective rechargeable battery for the hedge trimmer was to blame. Williford’s insurer, Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Co., which had subrogation rights, alleged negligence and asserted that the hedge trimmer was defective in design and manufacture and lacked adequate warnings. Penn National contended that the trimmer was not reasonably safe, did not protect against short circuiting and fires, had damaged battery cells and an inadequate battery casing, could not withstand foreseeable impacts, and lacked adequate warnings and precautions. STIHL Inc. moved to dismiss.

Denying the motion, the district court found that under North Carolina law, a plaintiff suing for products liability must prove duty, breach, causation, and damages. Regarding claims for design or manufacturing defect, the court said, these elements are met where a plaintiff demonstrates a product was defective when it left the defendant’s control, the defect resulted from the defendant’s negligence, and the defect proximately caused the damage. The court found that Penn National’s complaint alleges plausible facts that STIHL, as a manufacturer, is liable in a products liability action sounding in negligence. Penn National alleged that Williford was using the hedge trimmer in an ordinary manner when it caused the fire, that this damaged his property, and that the fire resulted from a list of defects in the hedge trimmer’s batteries. Moreover, the insurer sufficiently alleged that an actual defect existed in the product and that the fire occurred during its ordinary use, resulting in substantial damage. Thus, the court concluded that Penn National’s complaint was sufficient to give the defendant fair notice of the asserted claim and the grounds for it. Consequently, dismissal was not warranted.

Citation: Pennsylvania Nat’l Mut. Cas. Ins. Co. v. STIHL Inc., 2023 WL 5029142 (E.D.N.C. Aug. 7, 2023).

Plaintiff counsel: Daniel G. Cahill, Raleigh, N.C.; and Richard J. Boyd, Blue Bell, Pa.