## Facts

- A thirteen-month-old child fell about ten feet from a second-floor window of his parents’ rented townhome after the window screen fell out, causing severe permanent injuries.
- The screen was an ordinary wire-mesh insect screen designed to fit into grooves in the frame and sill and be secured by spring-loaded pins.
- Evidence showed a manufacturing defect: a bottom spring-loaded pin and the sill groove were defective, creating a “false latch” that did not securely hold the screen without outside pressure.
- During the incident, the child stood on a loveseat near the open window while his father adjusted the sash; the child touched or leaned on the screen, which fell away, and the child fell through the opening.
- The plaintiff conceded that the ordinary purpose of a mesh window screen is to keep insects out while allowing air and light in, not to restrain a child or prevent falls.

## Issues

1. Whether the manufacturer of an ordinary insect window screen owed a duty, in negligence or implied warranty, to make the screen capable of preventing a child from falling out of an open second-story window.
2. Whether using the insect screen as a protective barrier against a fall was product misuse outside the screen’s ordinary and reasonably foreseeable uses, precluding liability despite a manufacturing defect.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Virginia reversed the trial court’s judgment for the plaintiff and entered final judgment for the manufacturer.
- The court held the manufacturer owed no duty to provide a screen that functioned as a child-restraint device.
- The court concluded the child’s reliance on the screen as a barrier was misuse outside the product’s ordinary purpose and not a basis for negligence or implied-warranty liability.
- The existence of a manufacturing defect did not expand the manufacturer’s duty to protect against injuries resulting from using the product as a fall-prevention device.

## Legal Principles

- A manufacturer’s duties in negligence and implied warranty are tied to a product’s ordinary purposes and reasonably foreseeable uses.
- Implied warranty of merchantability requires fitness for ordinary purposes, not that a product be “accident-proof” or safe for every conceivable misuse.
- An ordinary insect screen is not a safety device; a manufacturer generally has no duty to ensure it will support a person’s weight or prevent falls from an open window.
- Product misuse outside the product’s ordinary and reasonably foreseeable uses defeats liability for negligence and breach of implied warranty, even where the product has a manufacturing defect.

## Conclusion

The court rejected liability for injuries caused when a child fell through an open window after leaning on an insect screen, reasoning that the screen’s ordinary purpose is insect control, not fall prevention, and that treating it as a safety barrier was misuse beyond the manufacturer’s legal duty.


Jeld-Wen, Inc. v. Gamble ex rel. Gamble, 256 Va. 144, 501 S.E.2d 393 (Va. 1998)