Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 19:52:53 -0700
Reply-To: Jim Arnott <jrasite@EONI.COM>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: Jim Arnott <jrasite@EONI.COM>
Organization: WetWesties <http://wetwesties.org>
Subject: OT Re: Hydro-flame lawsuit (was Heat!!!)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
I just did a diligent search to finally find the product liability
lawsuit that was referred to earlier In Durden vs. Hydro-flame it was
alleged that a defective Hydro-flame furnace installed in a Chief
Industries fifth-wheel trailer caused injuries due to carbon monoxide
poisoning. (Note: INJURIES. Opinion... Frivolous lawsuit. Someone got
a headache. Maybe not frivolous if manufacturer refused to listen.
Sued for bad PR.)
Here's a bit of it...(from the appeal) You determine if I have
installed a 'dangerous product'. You can read the entire text of the
appeal at <http://www.mtbizlaw.com/mtsup99/1999MT186.htm>
> ¶3. The Durdens filed this action against Chief Industries to recover damages for carbon monoxide poisoning they allegedly sustained while inhabiting a fifth-wheel trailer manufactured and sold by Chief Industries. The Durden's complaint was also filed against Hydro Flame Corporation, the manufacturer of the trailer furnace which is alleged to have been the source of the carbon monoxide. Chief Industries designed and installed the duct work and exhaust for the furnace which, according to the Durdens' expert, caused the trailer to be defective and unreasonably dangerous. The Durdens predicated each defendant's liability upon theories of breach of warranty and strict liability in tort.
>
> ¶4. As to Hydro Flame, the Durdens' complaint asserted that the furnace was defective as evidenced by the development of holes in the heat exchanger portion of the furnace. These holes were alleged to have allowed carbon monoxide to infiltrate the living space of the trailer. As to Chief Industries, the complaint alleged that the trailer was designed and manufactured in a defective and unreasonably dangerous condition because it incorporated a defective heating system, failed to have carbon monoxide detection devices, and failed to include adequate and complete warnings. It further alleged that Chief Industries failed to "properly inspect and test" the furnace.
>
<snip>
> ¶6. Following a jury trial between the Durdens and Chief Industries, the District Court granted the Durdens' motion for a directed verdict, finding that the trailer was defective, and granted a new trial on damages. The jury, nevertheless, found no causation between the defect and the Durdens' claimed injuries.
What I see is a heat exchanger with holes in it. Installed by a
trailer manufacturer without inspection or testing. Mine does not
have holes in the heat exchanger. I installed and INSPECTED it. It
is a perfectly fine product.
BTW, this is the only product liability link I found... All the rest
are dealers. And, BTW, the verdict was overturned...
Jim
| 
