Nowak Ex Rel. Nowak v. Faberge U.S.A., Inc. Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A jury found Faberge liable for burn injuries from its hair spray due to a defective valve and inadequate warnings. The court denied Faberge’s post-trial motions, upholding the verdict based on malfunction theory and failure to warn principles.
Legal Significance: This case affirms that a product defect can be proven via malfunction theory and that warning adequacy is judged by its ability to make the product safe, considering foreseeability of misuse and the user’s perception, not a reasonable person standard.
Nowak Ex Rel. Nowak v. Faberge U.S.A., Inc. Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
The minor plaintiff, Alison Nowak, was severely burned when she punctured a can of Faberge’s Aqua Net hair spray, causing the spray to ignite upon contact with a gas stove flame. The hair spray used highly flammable hydrocarbon propellants (butane and propane), a change from previously used non-flammable fluorocarbons. Faberge’s marketing department decided against altering the product’s appearance or significantly enhancing warnings despite awareness of the increased hazard and prior incidents of consumers puncturing aerosol cans near flames. The can in question malfunctioned, initially spraying in spurts and then not at all. Believing she could transfer the contents to a pump bottle, the plaintiff attempted to open the can with a can opener and then punctured its side. The warnings on the back of the can, in small white lettering against a light violet background, stated: “CAUTION: FLAMMABLE. DO NOT USE NEAR FIRE OR FLAME OR WHILE SMOKING. WARNING: Avoid spraying in eyes. Contents under pressure. Do not puncture or incinerate…” The plaintiff did not read these warnings, finding them inconspicuous. The jury found the valve system defective and the warnings inadequate, awarding $1,500,000.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Did the trial court err in upholding the jury’s verdict that the defendant was strictly liable for the plaintiff’s injuries due to a defective valve system under the malfunction theory and for providing inadequate warnings concerning the product’s flammability and risks associated with puncture?
No, the defendant’s motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Did the trial court err in upholding the jury’s verdict that the defendant was strictly liable for the plaintiff’s injuries due to a defective valve system under the malfunction theory and for providing inadequate warnings concerning the product’s flammability and risks associated with puncture?
Conclusion
This case illustrates the application of malfunction theory to prove product defects Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliqu
Legal Rule
Under Pennsylvania law, a product defect may be proven by evidence of Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id
Legal Analysis
The court upheld the jury's finding of a defective valve system based Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- Court upheld a $1.5M jury verdict against Faberge for injuries from