## Facts

- Lloyd Dean States, a construction worker, fell from a step ladder while attempting to attach a sign to a building using a power wrench, with the sign held by an overhead crane.
- States placed the ladder’s front feet on a sidewalk and the rear feet on an unfinished parking lot surface six to nine inches lower than the front feet.
- The ladder had written instructions/warnings affixed to it indicating proper placement and use; States’ positioning was contrary to those instructions.
- While on the ladder, States turned so his back was toward the steps and leaned toward the building, applying pressure to the sign with one hand and to the wrench with the other.
- The ladder shifted away from him, causing his fall and injuries.
- States, his spouse, and an insurer/subrogee sued the ladder manufacturer, R.D. Werner Co., asserting strict products liability, breach of warranty, and negligence.
- Plaintiffs claimed a defect in aluminum rivets securing spreader bars caused instability.
- The manufacturer argued misuse: States knowingly used the ladder on a substantially uneven surface in violation of clear warnings, and that misuse caused the accident.

## Issues

1. Whether, in a strict products liability action, the jury may be instructed that product misuse can defeat liability if misuse, rather than a defect, caused the plaintiff’s injuries.
2. Whether the plaintiff’s conduct should be submitted under comparative fault principles instead of as misuse that can bar recovery when it is the sole cause of the injury.

## Decision

- The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment entered on a defense verdict.
- The court upheld the misuse instruction permitting the jury to find no liability if States’ misuse of the ladder, rather than any defect, caused the accident.
- The court rejected plaintiffs’ argument that comparative fault instructions were required in place of the misuse defense where the evidence supported misuse as the sole proximate cause.

## Legal Principles

- Colorado strict products liability follows Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A, focusing on whether a product was in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous, measured against reasonable consumer expectations.
- A manufacturer is not strictly liable for injuries resulting from uses of the product that are not reasonably foreseeable or that materially depart from clear warnings/instructions.
- Product misuse operates as a complete defense in strict liability when the misuse is found to be the sole proximate cause of the injury, severing causation between any alleged defect and the harm.
- Comparative fault principles do not require apportionment where the jury is permitted to find that misuse, rather than defect, solely caused the accident.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed a defense verdict, holding that where a user knowingly employs a product contrary to explicit warnings and that misuse is found to be the sole cause of injury, misuse can bar recovery in strict products liability and comparative fault instructions are not required.


States v. R.D. Werner Co., 799 P.2d 427 (Colo. App. 1990)