## Facts

- Theodore Alevromagiros used a six-foot stepladder purchased from a retailer and manufactured by White Metal while performing work at his restaurant in Virginia.
- Months after earlier use without incident, the ladder allegedly bent and “twisted,” causing him to fall and suffer a severe arm fracture.
- Plaintiff claimed the ladder was defectively designed and/or manufactured, focusing on the spreader bars and the absence of additional bracing or stiffeners.
- Plaintiff’s engineering expert opined that the spreader bars buckled and that safer design features (e.g., triangular bracing, stronger spreaders, stiffeners) should have been used.
- The expert acknowledged the existence of advisory ANSI and UL standards, conceded compliance with UL, disputed ANSI compliance without introducing the ANSI standard or showing specific, substantiated deviations.
- Plaintiff did not test or examine an intact exemplar of the same ladder model and sought to introduce evidence of a competitor ladder with additional safety features; the trial court excluded that comparator evidence.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient under Virginia products-liability law for a reasonable jury to find the ladder unreasonably dangerous due to design or manufacturing defect.
2. Whether an expert’s opinions about preferred safety features, without objective proof tied to recognized standards or consumer expectations, can establish defect.
3. Whether the evidence supported a failure-to-warn claim and any independent basis for retailer liability.

## Decision

- The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s directed verdict (judgment as a matter of law) for the manufacturer and the retailer.
- The court held plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence that the ladder was defective or unreasonably dangerous when it left defendants’ control.
- The court held plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence that additional warnings were required or that any warning deficiency caused the injury.
- The court found no separate evidentiary basis for retailer liability apart from the asserted defect and warning theories.

## Legal Principles

- Under Virginia law, a products-liability plaintiff must prove the product was unreasonably dangerous for its intended or foreseeable use and that the condition existed when the product left the defendant’s hands.
- A defect theory must be supported by objective evidence showing departure from governmental or industry standards, customary practice/state of the art, or reasonable consumer expectations; the occurrence of an accident alone is insufficient.
- Expert testimony that proposes additional safety features is inadequate absent proof that those features reflect accepted standards, prevailing practice, or demonstrated consumer expectations.
- Compliance with recognized standards (or failure to prove noncompliance with them) weighs against a finding of defect when the plaintiff offers no objective benchmark establishing an applicable standard of safety.
- The existence of a “safer” competing product design does not, by itself, establish that the defendant’s design is unreasonably dangerous.
- Failure-to-warn liability requires evidence that additional warnings were required by objective benchmarks and that the absence of such warnings was causally connected to the injury.
- A retailer is not liable absent proof the product was defective or proof of an independent breach of duty (e.g., alteration of the product or knowledge of a defect).

## Conclusion

The Fourth Circuit upheld judgment for the manufacturer and retailer because the plaintiff’s proof consisted largely of an expert’s design preferences and post-accident observations, without objective evidence tying the alleged defect or warning inadequacy to recognized standards, customary practice, or ordinary consumer expectations.


Alevromagiros v. Hechinger Co., 993 F.2d 417 (4th Cir. 1993)