Nowak Ex Rel. Nowak v. Faberge U.S.A., Inc. Case Brief
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
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.
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
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
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