## Facts

- Otis Austin, a roofer, operated a Garlock power roof sweeper on a flat roof in Providence, Rhode Island.
- The sweeper used separate clutches for the brush and wheels, coordinated by an interlock mechanism that included a spring pin.
- Austin stopped the machine about two to five feet from the roof edge to add fuel.
- After refueling, he restarted the machine; when he re-engaged the controls, the sweeper suddenly bucked backward, and Austin fell off the roof and was seriously injured.
- Austin alleged a design defect: the spring-pin-based interlock allowed the clutches to engage unreliably, causing lurching or bucking on start-up.
- Austin testified the sweeper had never bucked backward before the accident.
- A warning label stated the sweeper should not be used within ten feet of a roof edge; Austin admitted he did not read the warning and was operating closer than ten feet.
- Austin sued the manufacturer (Garlock) and the seller/distributor (Lincoln) under strict products liability.
- The jury found Garlock strictly liable, found Lincoln not liable, rejected assumption of risk, and apportioned fault 60% to Austin and 40% to Garlock, reducing damages accordingly.
- The district court denied Garlock’s post-trial motions (directed verdict, JNOV, and new trial), and Garlock appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient for a reasonable jury to find a design defect in the sweeper’s interlock mechanism and that the defect was a substantial factor in causing the fall.
2. Whether operating within ten feet of the roof edge contrary to the warning constituted misuse or assumption of risk barring recovery as a matter of law, or instead supported comparative negligence reducing damages.
3. Whether a warning and the user’s failure to heed it, including under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A comment j, necessarily precludes strict liability despite evidence of an independent design defect.
4. Whether the verdict could stand given the jury’s finding that the plaintiff was 60% negligent.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the judgment against Garlock.
- The court held the expert and lay testimony supported jury findings of both design defect and causation.
- The court held Austin’s disregard of the warning did not bar recovery as misuse or assumption of risk as a matter of law; it was properly addressed through comparative negligence.
- The court rejected Garlock’s argument that comment j converted warning noncompliance into an automatic complete defense, particularly where the claim rested on defective design.
- The district court properly denied a directed verdict, JNOV, and a new trial.

## Legal Principles

- In strict products liability for defective design, a plaintiff’s negligent use of the product commonly reduces damages under comparative negligence rather than automatically barring recovery.
- Whether a plaintiff’s conduct amounts to assumption of risk, and the allocation of fault, are generally jury questions when supported by evidence.
- An adequate warning does not necessarily defeat a design-defect claim; warning evidence may bear on causation and comparative negligence but does not, by itself, negate liability as a matter of law.
- Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A comment j does not require judgment for a manufacturer whenever a user fails to follow a warning, especially where an alleged design defect contributes to the injury.
- Appellate review of denial of directed verdict/JNOV/new trial requires viewing evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict winner and deferring where reasonable jurors could reach the verdict.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a strict design-defect verdict against the manufacturer, concluding that the jury could reasonably find the interlock mechanism defective and causative, and that the plaintiff’s failure to heed a roof-edge warning was appropriately treated as comparative negligence rather than a categorical misuse or assumption-of-risk bar.


Austin v. Lincoln Equip. Assocs., Inc., 888 F.2d 934 (1st Cir. 1989)