## Facts

- Faberge, Inc. manufactured and sold “Tigress” cologne.
- The cologne was highly flammable; Faberge knew or should have known it could ignite when near an open flame.
- The bottle lacked any warning that the product was flammable or should be kept away from flame.
- Randy Williams (15) poured the cologne under or near a lit candle at his home while Nancy Moran (15) was present.
- The vapors ignited in a burst of flame, burning Nancy Moran.
- Nancy Moran, by her father and next friend, sued Faberge in negligence for failure to warn of a latent danger.
- A jury found for Moran and awarded damages.
- The trial court granted judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) for Faberge; an intermediate appellate court affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether a cologne manufacturer owes a duty to warn of latent flammability when the product is used in a reasonably foreseeable environment where ignition sources may be present, even if the specific accident sequence was unusual.
2. Whether the evidence, viewed most favorably to the plaintiff, was sufficient to require submission of foreseeability and duty-to-warn questions to the jury, making JNOV improper.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals of Maryland reversed and ordered reinstatement of the jury verdict for Moran.
- The court held the evidence permitted a finding that Faberge had a duty to warn of the cologne’s latent flammability.
- The court held it was reasonably foreseeable that cologne used in the home could be brought near flames or ignition sources.
- The court ruled the trial court erred in taking the case from the jury by granting JNOV.

## Legal Principles

- In negligence-based products liability, a manufacturer may be liable for failure to provide adequate warnings of latent dangers associated with its product.
- A duty to warn arises when the manufacturer knows or should know of a nonobvious danger and the product will be used in a reasonably foreseeable manner and environment.
- Foreseeability focuses on the normal environment of use; liability does not require anticipation of the precise accident sequence if the type of harm is foreseeable from the latent danger.
- On review of JNOV, the evidence and reasonable inferences must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party against whom JNOV was entered; if reasonable jurors could differ, the issue is for the jury.

## Conclusion

Because the cologne’s flammability was a latent, known risk and home use foreseeably involves potential ignition sources, a reasonable jury could find a duty to warn and a negligent breach; the court therefore reinstated the plaintiff’s verdict and rejected JNOV.


Moran v. Faberge, Inc., 332 A.2d 11 (Md. 1975)