## Facts

- Linda M. Green, a health-care worker, regularly used Smith & Nephew AHP, Inc.’s latex medical gloves at work.
- Green developed a serious latex allergy and alleged the gloves were defective and unreasonably dangerous because they contained allergy-causing latex proteins and were powder-coated in a way that increased exposure (including airborne exposure).
- Trial evidence indicated roughly 5% to 17% of users could experience allergic reactions to latex proteins in such gloves, with reactions ranging from irritation to serious systemic responses.
- Green sued in strict products liability; a jury found the gloves defective and unreasonably dangerous and awarded damages.
- The circuit court entered judgment on the verdict; the court of appeals affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether a jury may find a product “defective and unreasonably dangerous” in strict liability based solely on ordinary consumer expectations.
2. Whether strict products liability permits a finding of defect “regardless of whether the manufacturer knew or could have known” of the risk (i.e., whether knowledge/foreseeability is an element).
3. Whether evidence that only a minority of users (about 5%–17%) suffer allergic reactions precludes a finding that the product is defective and unreasonably dangerous.
4. Whether admission of certain opinion testimony about the gloves’ safety required reversal.

## Decision

- The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed the judgment for Green and the court of appeals.
- The court held the consumer-expectation standard may, by itself, support a finding that a product is defective and unreasonably dangerous.
- The court upheld the instruction that defect may be found regardless of the manufacturer’s knowledge or ability to know of the risk, because foreseeability is not an element of strict products liability in Wisconsin.
- The court held sufficient evidence supported the verdict even though only a minority of consumers were affected, because the risk and severity could exceed what an ordinary consumer would contemplate.
- Although some opinion evidence was admitted in error, the court ruled the error harmless because other evidence sufficiently supported the verdict.

## Legal Principles

- Under Wisconsin strict products liability (Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A), a product is defective and unreasonably dangerous if it is dangerous beyond the extent contemplated by the ordinary consumer with ordinary community knowledge.
- A risk-utility balancing requirement is not mandatory in every design-defect strict liability case; consumer expectations may be determinative.
- Foreseeability and the manufacturer’s knowledge (or ability to know) of a product’s risk are not required elements of strict products liability; the focus is the product’s condition and its dangerousness to ordinary consumers.
- A product may be unreasonably dangerous even if only a minority of consumers are harmed, where the nature and gravity of the risk exceed ordinary consumer expectations.
- Erroneous admission of evidence warrants reversal only if there is a reasonable probability the error affected the outcome; otherwise, it is harmless.

## Conclusion

The Wisconsin Supreme Court left intact a jury verdict finding latex medical gloves defective and unreasonably dangerous, holding that consumer expectations can establish defect, manufacturer foreseeability is not required in strict liability, a low incidence of harm does not bar liability where the danger exceeds ordinary expectations, and any evidentiary error was harmless.


Green v. Smith & Nephew AHP, Inc., 629 N.W.2d 727 (Wis. 2001)