Court Rules Misuse-of-Product Special Defense Insufficient
by
Joseph C. Maya on Jun. 07, 2017
Accident & Injury Products Liability Accident & Injury Personal Injury
Summary: A blog post about special defenses and their sufficiency in a products liability case out of Connecticut.
Contact the personal injury attorneys at Maya Murphy, P.C. today. We can help you get the just compensation you deserve for your injuries or those of a loved one. For a free initial consultation, call 203-221-3100 or email JMaya@Mayalaw.com.
To state a legally sufficient special defense that plaintiff or its insured misused the product, defendants in a product-liability action were required to allege: (1) that the product was misused; (2) that the misuse was not foreseeable; and (3) that the misuse proximately caused plaintiff’s injuries.
After Amica Mutual Insurance Co. sued Watts Water Technologies Inc. and Watts Regulator Co. and alleged that defendants violated the Connecticut Product Liability Act, defendants filed a first special defense that claimed plaintiff’s damages were caused because plaintiff or plaintiff’s insured modified the product. Plaintiff moved to strike the first special defense, because the complaint specifically stated that the product was not modified.
The Connecticut Practice Book required that special defenses be consistent with the allegations in the complaint. A special defense that alleged different facts than those alleged in the complaint was legally insufficient, and the court granted plaintiff’s motion to strike the first special defense.
The second defense alleged comparative fault by plaintiff and its insured, which was legally sufficient, survived plaintiff’s motion to strike.
The fourth special defense alleged that plaintiff or its insured misused the product. To state a legally sufficient special defense, defendants were required to allege that the product was misused, that the misuse was not foreseeable and that the misuse proximately caused plaintiff’s injuries. The fourth special defense was legally insufficient, because it only alleged that plaintiff or its insured misused the product, and the court granted the motion to strike.
The seventh special defense alleged that plaintiff or its insured did not mitigate damages. Connecticut Superior Courts were divided on whether failure to mitigate damages was a legally valid special defense. Here, the court granted plaintiff’s motion to strike the special defense of failure to mitigate damages. The eighth special defense alleged that plaintiff failed to state a claim under the general malfunction theory. A defense claim that the complaint failed to adequately allege a particular cause of action did not constitute a proper defense, and the court granted the motion to strike.
At Maya Murphy, P.C., our personal injury attorneys are dedicated to achieving the best results for individuals and their family members and loved ones whose daily lives have been disrupted by injury, whether caused by a motor vehicle or pedestrian accident, a slip and fall, medical malpractice, a defective product, or otherwise. Our attorneys are not afraid to aggressively pursue and litigate cases and have extensive experience litigating personal injury matters in both state and federal courts, and always with regard to the unique circumstances of our client and the injury he or she has sustained.
Source: J. Scholl. Misuse-of-Product Special defense Was Legally Insufficient. CONN. LAW TRIBUNE, May 16, 2016 at 22.
