___________________________
Hillsborough-southern judicial district
No. 95-803
PETER
LARAMIE & a.
v.
SEARS,
ROEBUCK & COMPANY
March 18, 1998
Hamblett & Kerrigan,
P.A., of Nashua ( John P. Griffith and Robert D. Lietz on the
brief, and Mr. Lietz orally), for the plaintiff.
Hall, Morse,
Anderson, Miller & Spinella, P.C., of Concord
( Douglas J. Miller on the brief), and Donahue & Donahue, of
Lowell, Massachusetts ( Joseph D. Regan orally), for the defendant.
JOHNSON, J.
The defendant, Sears, Roebuck & Company (Sears),
appeals the verdict reached in this products liability case following
a jury trial in Superior Court ( Brennan, J.). Sears asserts that
the trial court erred in denying Sears' motions for directed verdict,
in allowing one of the plaintiffs' witnesses to testify as an expert,
in admitting into evidence an exemplar pictograph warning, in precluding
Sears' counsel from conducting cross-examination about a prior
lawsuit arising out of the same incident, in allowing a medical
journal article to be introduced into evidence, and in denying
Sears' motions for contribution and costs. We affirm.
This action was brought by Peter and Lynn Laramie, individually
and on behalf of their minor daughter, Emma Laramie, for damages
arising out of an incident in which Emma sustained serious scald
burns while being bathed in a kitchen sink. The plaintiffs alleged
counts of negligence, failure to warn, and strict liability against
Sears as seller of the dishwasher that plaintiffs claimed caused
their daughter's injuries.
From the evidence presented at trial, the jury could have found
the following facts. On the evening of October 28, 1991, the Laramies
had dinner at their apartment in Nashua. After the dishes had been
cleared away and the dishwasher started, Mrs. Laramie proceeded
to bathe nine-month-old Emma in the kitchen sink. Neither Mr. nor
Mrs. Laramie could remember at trial whether either of them had
cleared the garbage disposal after dinner that night. While Mrs.
Laramie was bathing Emma, wastewater from the dishwasher backed
up into the sink causing Emma to sustain a full-thickness burn
to her perineal area that required skin grafting.
At trial, the
plaintiffs argued that Sears was negligent in failing to warn
them that scalding hot water from the dishwasher could back up
into the sink and that Sears was strictly liable for their damages
because the lack of such a warning made the dishwasher unreasonably
dangerous. Sears counterclaimed, arguing that if found liable,
it was entitled to full indemnification or contribution from
Mr. and Mrs. Laramie because they were negligent in bathing Emma.
The jury found for the plaintiffs on the negligence claim and
awarded Emma $40,000 for her injuries. The jury awarded nothing,
however, to Mr. and Mrs. Laramie for their individual claims,
and found for Sears on the strict liability claim. The jury also
found that Mr. and Mrs. Laramie were negligent and attributed
eighty-five percent of the total negligence to them and fifteen
percent to Sears. The jury ruled against Sears, however, on its
counterclaim.
