Judgment was issued yesterday in federal court in Minnesota in favor of Forsgren Fisher client CRC Industries, which had manufactured a can of CRC Duster—a product used by millions to clean keyboards and electronic equipment—that a Minnesota man had allegedly used to get high by “huffing” it before losing control of his car and crashing into an oncoming car in Baudette, Minnesota.  The other car’s driver was killed in the crash.  A leading plaintiff’s firm filed a wrongful-death lawsuit against CRC in 2020.

CRC had placed on each can of Duster a warning that intentional inhalation of the contents could cause death, and the plaintiff’s counsel agreed that the product is safe for its intended use.  The man who caused the fatal crash testified in his deposition that on the day of the accident he knew that huffing a duster could cause him to pass out and that if he huffed while driving he might pass out and kill someone.

The district court allowed the case to go to the jury, which found that CRC was 22.5% responsible for the death, awarded millions of dollars in damages, and declined to award punitive damages.  CRC appealed.

The appeal presented fascinating questions of legal duty, foreseeability, and proximate causation, but it also presented a simple threshold issue—can a plaintiff win a products-liability case without presenting evidence of a safer, feasible alternative design of the product?  On this case’s facts, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals said no.  (See the Eighth Circuit’s opinion in McDougall v. CRC here.)  Yesterday, the district court vacated the earlier judgment and entered final judgment in CRC’s favor.

Forsgren Fisher’s Virginia McCalmont, lead counsel for CRC, said, “We’re sad about the painful saga that a good family and community has had to endure. We are also proud of the work we and our client and colleagues, both inside and outside our firm, did to uphold an important legal principle.”  Bob Gilbertson, co-lead counsel, added: “Product manufacturers shouldn’t be held liable when a properly labeled product is intentionally abused.  And a design-defect products case should require, at the very least, evidence that a safer design was feasible.”

Forsgren Fisher’s trial team was Gilbertson, McCalmont, David Wallace-Jackson, and paralegal Eric Ernstene.  Jeff Markowitz and Beth Prouty of the Arthur Chapman firm joined the team for trial and led the successful appeal.