The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that the trial court can resolve the adequacy of a warning as a matter of law. In Farias v. Mr. Heater, Inc., 684 F.3d 1231 (11th Cir. 2012) Plaintiff appealed from an adverse summary judgment ruling contending that the district court erred by resolving, as a matter of law, rather than leaving for jury’s determination, the question of the adequacy of the warnings and instructions provided with a propane gas heater. Plaintiff had purchased two gas heaters which she claims she unwittingly used inside her home and when she failed to close a valve on one of the heaters propane gas tanks before going to sleep, her home caught on fire, causing approximately $300,000.00 in damages. The Court of Appeals reviewed the instructions and warnings supplied with the heater as well as the outside of the box in which the heater was sold. The court concluded that the district court was correct in holding that the instructions were adequate as a matter of law and said,
“Accordingly, and contrary to Farias’ contentions otherwise, the question of the adequacy of the warnings accompanying the Mr. Heater propane gas heater can properly be resolved as a matter of law so long as the warnings are objectively accurate, clear, and unambiguous.” (P. 1234)
The Court of Appeals concluded that the warnings adequately conveyed the message that misuse of the heater runs a serious risk of fire and said,
“We find these warnings to be of such intensity as to cause a reasonable man to exercise for his own safety caution commensurate with the potential danger of fire that occurred due to Farias’ misuse of the heater.” (P 1236)