## Facts

- A father purchased an electric steam vaporizer manufactured by Hankscraft Company for use in his young child’s bedroom to humidify the room on a doctor’s advice.
- The parents read and followed the manufacturer’s written instructions in operating the device.
- The vaporizer heated water to near boiling and emitted steam; evidence indicated the unit could tip or the plastic top could be displaced, causing a sudden discharge of near-boiling water.
- The written instructions and warnings did not adequately alert users to the risk of scalding or specify precautions appropriate to foreseeable use around small children.
- The child suffered severe burns when hot water escaped from the vaporizer.
- A jury found for the plaintiff on negligence and breach of express warranty and awarded $150,000.
- The trial court granted judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) and conditionally granted a new trial in a general order that did not specify grounds.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence, viewed most favorably to the verdict, was sufficient to support liability for negligent design and failure to warn.
2. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support liability for breach of express warranty based on the manufacturer’s written representations.
3. Whether the trial court properly granted JNOV under the governing standard.
4. Whether a conditional new-trial order could stand when it stated no specific grounds, including on the claim that damages were excessive.

## Decision

- The Minnesota Supreme Court reversed the JNOV, holding the evidence permitted a reasonable jury to find for the plaintiff on negligence and express warranty.
- The court reversed the conditional new-trial order because it lacked articulated grounds and the record supported the verdict.
- The court reinstated the $150,000 jury verdict, finding no showing that the award resulted from passion or prejudice.

## Legal Principles

- JNOV is proper only when the evidence is practically conclusive against the verdict; courts must view the evidence and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict.
- A manufacturer must exercise reasonable care in product design and warnings where foreseeable use presents serious risks, including use in the presence of small children.
- Failure-to-warn liability may rest on inadequate warning of non-obvious dangers associated with foreseeable use.
- Express warranty may arise from a manufacturer’s written affirmations or representations about safe or suitable use; liability may follow if the product fails to conform and the breach causes injury.
- An order granting a new trial should rest on specific stated grounds; a general, unexplained order may be reversed where the record supports the verdict.
- A damages award is not set aside as excessive solely due to its size absent indications of passion, prejudice, or lack of evidentiary support.

## Conclusion

The court reinstated a jury verdict for a child injured by a steam vaporizer, holding that the evidence supported findings of negligent design, failure to warn, and breach of express warranty, and that neither JNOV nor a general conditional new-trial order was justified on this record.


McCormack v. Hankscraft Co., 278 Minn. 322, 154 N.W.2d 488 (Minn. 1967)