## Facts

- Joseph W. Klein bought a 10-inch radial arm saw from Sears, manufactured by Emerson Electric.
- While using the saw in his garage, Klein’s left hand contacted the blade, amputating four fingers.
- Klein alleged a design defect: the saw lacked a lower blade guard that would shield the underside of the rotating blade.
- The manual contained warnings, including not leaving the saw running while unattended or during “layout, assembly, or set-up work,” and not reaching behind or around a moving blade.
- Klein testified he read the warnings and, during repetitive rip cuts, left the saw running between cuts while moving within the garage to place finished pieces and retrieve new stock.
- Klein proffered expert testimony that it was common practice not to shut off a saw between repetitive rip cuts and that Klein’s between-cut movements did not amount to prohibited “layout, assembly, or set-up work.”
- The trial court dismissed, before trial, claims for breach of warranty, punitive damages, and Edythe Klein’s loss of consortium; the case proceeded only on strict products liability for design defect.
- After Klein’s direct examination at trial, the court granted summary judgment for defendants on the strict liability claim based largely on Klein’s testimony about warnings and his operation of the saw.

## Issues

1. Whether summary judgment was proper on the strict products liability design-defect claim where evidence (including proffered expert testimony) could support findings of defective design and foreseeable use despite warnings.
2. Whether a spouse may maintain a loss of consortium claim derivative of an injured spouse’s strict products liability claim.

## Decision

- The appellate court reversed the summary judgment on the strict liability claim and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held that genuine disputes existed as to defective design, proximate causation, foreseeability of Klein’s manner of use, and the effect and adequacy of the warnings.
- The court held that loss of consortium is cognizable when the underlying claim is strict products liability, and the pretrial dismissal of the consortium count was erroneous.

## Legal Principles

- Summary judgment is improper where reasonable factfinders could differ on whether a product is defectively designed and unreasonably dangerous and whether the plaintiff’s conduct was a foreseeable use or misuse.
- In design-defect cases, proffered expert testimony and disputed inferences regarding foreseeability and causation commonly require jury resolution.
- A user’s noncompliance with warnings does not automatically bar strict liability as a matter of law; whether the warnings adequately addressed the conduct and whether the conduct constitutes misuse breaking causation are typically jury questions.
- Loss of consortium is a derivative claim that may proceed when the injured spouse has a legally cognizable claim for physical injury under strict products liability.

## Conclusion

The court reinstated the design-defect strict liability claim because disputed factual questions about defect, foreseeability, and warnings could not be resolved by summary judgment, and it recognized loss of consortium as available when the underlying injury is actionable in strict products liability.


Klein v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 608 A.2d 1276 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1992)