## Facts

- A fire on March 18, 1997 severely damaged the Waltham Racquet Club in Massachusetts.
- The fire began in the men’s sauna room after a towel or other fabric was placed on the rocks of a sauna heater manufactured by Oy Saunatec, Ltd.
- Cigna Insurance Company paid the club’s losses and sued Saunatec as subrogee in a diversity action governed by Massachusetts law.
- Cigna alleged negligent design (including failure to include a guard/grill), negligent failure to warn, and breach of the implied warranty of merchantability.
- The heater was manufactured around 1974, and the club had experienced an earlier similar sauna-room fire years earlier.
- At trial, the jury found Saunatec liable on negligence and allocated 35% comparative fault to the club; damages were reduced accordingly.
- On implied warranty, the jury found for Cigna but also found Saunatec proved “unreasonable use” (misuse), barring warranty recovery.
- Cigna appealed certain jury instructions (comparative negligence in a warranty-based products theory and an instruction allowing consideration of sprinkler installation), and Saunatec cross-appealed seeking a separate misuse instruction for negligence and raising limitations-related arguments.

## Issues

1. Whether Massachusetts comparative negligence principles could be submitted to the jury and used to reduce recovery in this products-liability trial involving implied-warranty and negligence theories.
2. Whether the district court erred by refusing Saunatec’s requested separate jury instruction treating product misuse (“unreasonable use”) as a complete defense to negligence.
3. Whether the district court improperly instructed the jury that it could consider the club’s failure to install sprinklers as part of comparative fault.
4. Whether the claims were time-barred under Massachusetts three-year limitations periods given the heater’s age and the earlier similar fire.

## Decision

- The First Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment.
- The court upheld the comparative-fault submission and the 35% reduction of negligence damages based on the club’s conduct.
- The court held the instructions, viewed as a whole, adequately addressed misuse and user conduct; refusal to give an additional negligence-specific misuse instruction was not reversible error.
- The court found no reversible error in allowing the jury to consider sprinkler-related evidence and instruction as part of comparative negligence.
- The court did not disturb the timeliness determination that the action accrued from the 1997 fire and was filed within the applicable limitations period.

## Legal Principles

- Under Massachusetts law, comparative negligence reduces negligence damages by the plaintiff’s percentage of fault and bars recovery only if the plaintiff’s fault exceeds the defendant’s.
- In Massachusetts products cases, implied warranty functions as the strict-liability analogue, and “unreasonable use” (misuse) can bar warranty recovery when the use is unreasonable and not reasonably foreseeable.
- Jury instructions are reviewed in their entirety; a court need not give a separately framed instruction if the charge and verdict form sufficiently present the substance of the defense and allow argument on user conduct.
- In comparative-fault analysis, the jury may consider fact-specific conduct bearing on reasonable care, including safety practices and precautions relevant to the extent of damage.
- For tort and tort-based warranty claims, limitations generally run from the occurrence of injury and damage; a later fire loss can trigger accrual despite earlier product manufacture or prior incidents.

## Conclusion

The First Circuit affirmed a products-liability verdict arising from a sauna-heater fire, upholding the comparative-fault reduction of negligence damages, the charge permitting the jury to weigh the club’s safety-related conduct, and the treatment of misuse as barring warranty recovery without requiring an additional negligence-specific misuse instruction.


Cigna Ins. Co. v. Oy Saunatec, Ltd., 241 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2001)