In Pelton v Maytag, 2024 ONSC 3016 (“Pelton”) the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (the “Court”) ruled that the defendant manufacturers were not liable for failing to warn consumers that the product could fail because of a “freezing event” and did not establish a manufacturing defect claim. In dismissing the plaintiff’s product liability claims, the Court offers guidance regarding a manufacturer's duty to warn of remote or unforeseeable risks, and the evidentiary standard involved in establishing manufacturing defect claims.
Background
The plaintiff purchased a dishwasher, which he had installed against an external wall on the main floor of his home in Toronto, Ontario. The dishwasher ran without issue or leaks for about 10 years until January 2014, when the plaintiff returned from vacation to a major water leak originating from a solenoid valve (the “Valve”) in the dishwasher.
The plaintiff commenced an action seeking damages caused by the water leak from the dishwasher. Specifically, the plaintiff alleged that the plastic component of the Valve was defective and had failed, and that the manufacturer of the dishwasher and the supplier of the Valve (together, the “Defendants”) were jointly and severally liable. In the alternative, the plaintiffs asserted that the Defendants were liable for not warning consumers that the Valve could fail and leak if exposed to freezing temperatures.
The plaintiff’s expert opined that the Valve failure was a result of the design and/or manufacturing defects in the plastic material. Meanwhile, the Defendants’ expert concluded that there was no evidence of any manufacturing defects in the Valve and that the fracture in the Valve was most likely caused by excessive pressures attributable to freezing temperatures.
The Decision
The Court dismissed the plaintiff’s claims and held that the Defendants are not liable for manufacturing a defective product and for not warning consumers that the Valve in the dishwasher could fail and cause a leak because of a freezing event.
No Liability for Manufacture of Defective Product
When weighing the evidence, the Court held that the plaintiff did not prove on a balance of probabilities that there was a defect in the plastic material of the Valve that caused the dishwasher to flood the plaintiff’s home.
The plaintiff’s expert evidence had concluded that there was significant chemical degradation of the Valve due to insufficient oxidation or stabilizers that caused the Valve to fail. The Court held that the plaintiff’s evidence fell short of proving chemical degradation because the plastic in the Valve was 18 years old and was being compared to valves that were significantly newer. Moreover, the Fourier-transform Infrared Spectroscopy (FTIR) testing did not indicate degradation of the plastic – a fact that the Court found to be very problematic to the plaintiff’s case.
The Court noted that additional testing might have strengthened the plaintiff’s case against the Defendants. For instance, while the plaintiff’s expert had noted that the Valve was yellowish in colour indicating degradation, he had not conducted a “yellowing” test.
Ultimately, while the experts on both sides were highly knowledgeable, persuasive, and credible, the Court concluded that the Defendants’ experts had “poked too many holes” in the plaintiff’s case and that, as noted above, the factual matrix behind the testing of the Valve was problematic.
No Liability for Failure to Warn
The plaintiff had asserted that the owner’s manual supplied with the product should have included warnings that cautioned about the dangers posed by a freezing event. Drawing on the Defendants’ expert evidence that out of the ten million solenoid valves manufactured per year there were only 10-20 failures per year, the Court found that the risk of failure of the Valve due to a freeze event was remote. While the Defendant’s expert testified that he performed freeze testing and knew the solenoid valves would crack and burst when attached to a frozen copper pipe, the Court held that the Defendants could not have known that the Valve was the weakest link in the plumbing system of the Plaintiff’s house and would burst and flood the house during the January 2014 cold snap. According to the Court, there was a “confluence of factors” (i.e., the dishwasher was located against an exterior wall of the house, the subzero temperatures persisted for several days, the house was empty and the leak therefore undiscovered) that may have led to the flooding and damage to the property. According to the Court, it was not incumbent on the Defendants to warn of this remote event rooted in “specific facts and circ*mstances”.
Key Takeaways
- While manufacturers have a duty to warn of probable and foreseeable risks, Pelton underscores that there is no duty to warn of remote risks of dangers, or those rooted in specific facts and circ*mstances known only to the user of the product.
- The decision highlights the importance of reliable expert evidence in establishing manufacturing defect claims. Courts may not necessarily find evidence reliable or persuasive where the products used in testing are significantly newer than the product in issue, or where additional testing could have been done by an expert but was not.
The authors would like to acknowledge the support and assistance of Kathleen Petsinis, summer student at law.
[View source.]
