## Facts

- Amazing Products, Inc. manufactured and sold “Liquid Fire,” a sulfuric-acid drain cleaner.
- Robert Jones bought a pint container of Liquid Fire at an Ace Hardware store in Georgia to unclog household drains, selecting it after a plumber cousin’s recommendation.
- Jones poured Liquid Fire from its original container into a different container (a Clorox bottle).
- The substitute container melted, spilling sulfuric acid onto Jones’s leg and foot and causing severe burns and related injuries.
- The original Liquid Fire label contained warnings, including a warning not to transfer the product to another container.
- Plaintiffs alleged the “no transfer” warning was inadequately presented because it was embedded in lengthy text and printed in small type; Jones testified he tried to read the label but could not due to the font size.
- Plaintiffs sued for damages under Georgia product-liability theories, including strict liability, negligence, and gross negligence, asserting manufacturing defect, design/packaging defect, and failure to warn.
- The case was removed to federal court; the defendant moved for summary judgment, and plaintiffs sought reconsideration of an earlier order denying sanctions.

## Issues

1. Whether plaintiffs produced sufficient evidence of a manufacturing defect in the product sold to Jones.
2. Whether Liquid Fire was so inherently dangerous that it should not be marketed at all.
3. Whether there was a triable design-defect claim regarding the product’s container/packaging.
4. Whether there was a triable failure-to-warn claim based on the form and readability of the label warning against transferring the product.
5. Whether plaintiffs showed grounds to reconsider the prior denial of sanctions.

## Decision

- The court granted the defendant’s summary judgment motion in part and denied it in part.
- The court granted summary judgment for the defendant on the manufacturing-defect claim due to lack of evidence that the unit deviated from intended design or from other units.
- The court granted summary judgment for the defendant on the claim that the product was too dangerous to be marketed, finding insufficient evidence that sulfuric-acid drain cleaners were unreasonably dangerous per se.
- The court denied summary judgment on the container design-defect theory, concluding factual disputes existed suitable for jury resolution.
- The court denied summary judgment on the failure-to-warn theory, holding a jury could find the warning presentation (including font size and conspicuousness) inadequate, particularly given testimony that Jones attempted but could not read it.
- The court denied plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration of the earlier denial of sanctions.

## Legal Principles

- On summary judgment, the court views the evidence and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmovant and denies relief where genuine disputes of material fact exist.
- A manufacturing-defect claim requires evidence that the particular product deviated from the manufacturer’s intended design or from otherwise identical units; absence of such proof supports judgment as a matter of law.
- A claim that a product should not be sold at all requires evidence that the product is unreasonably dangerous in an absolute sense, not merely capable of causing serious injury.
- Design-defect and packaging/container-defect claims often involve fact questions (including risk-utility considerations and feasible alternatives) that may be inappropriate for resolution on summary judgment where the record supports competing inferences.
- Warning adequacy commonly presents a jury question and may turn on both content and presentation (e.g., conspicuousness, placement, and readability); evidence that a user tried but could not read a warning can support causation and defeat summary judgment.
- A motion for reconsideration generally requires a showing such as clear legal error, newly discovered evidence, or another recognized basis; reargument is insufficient.

## Conclusion

The court narrowed the case by disposing of manufacturing-defect and “too dangerous to market” theories, but allowed the action to proceed to trial on whether the container design and the warning’s presentation were defective and causally related to Jones’s injuries, while refusing to revisit a prior order denying sanctions.


Jones v. Amazing Prods., Inc., 231 F. Supp. 2d 1228 (N.D. Ga. 2002)