Business Law Nowak v Faberge USA Inc Essential Facts Case Powerpoint Please do a case powerpoint (around 12 slides) for Nowak By and Through Nowak v. Faber

Business Law Nowak v Faberge USA Inc Essential Facts Case Powerpoint Please do a case powerpoint (around 12 slides) for Nowak By and Through Nowak v. Faberge USA Inc. The case and instruction are provided in additional files. [Also I have provided a sample case powerpoint from 2013 class].

Here is a quick look of the powerpoint format that can be found in instruction:

Case Power Point Format:

1. Forum (whatever court it is e.g., U.S. Supreme Court

2. Date of Decision

3. Topic

4. Parties

5. Key Definitions of Legal Terms

6. Essential Facts

7. Plaintiff’s Legal Arguments

8. Defendant’s Legal Arguments

9.Issues

Issue #1
Issue #2
Issue #3, etc.

10. Case Decision and Supporting Rationale

11. Lessons Learned – Those key points of the case that illustrate important legal and common sense principles. Again, much of your case presentation grade will depend on how succinctly and completely you identify and discuss theseLessons Learned. Again, identify and explain the case’s key legal and common-sense principles as Lessons Learned. Instructions for Power Point
Objectives:
• Illustrative the application of legal principles studied in class.
• Observe the various interrelationships in the facts.
• Gives the individual student the opportunity to apply analytical methods to given facts
situations and to report his/her conclusions to the class.
• Gives the class an opportunity to examine, judge and evaluate actual cases.
Case Power Point Format:
1. Forum (whatever court it is e.g., U.S. Supreme Court )
2. Date of Decision
3. Topic
4. Parties
5. Key Definitions of Legal Terms
6. Essential Facts
7. Plaintiff’s Legal Arguments
8. Defendant’s Legal Arguments
9. Issues
o Issue #1
o Issue #2
o Issue #3, etc.
10. Case Decision and Supporting Rationale
11. Lessons Learned – Those key points of the case that illustrate important legal and common
sense principles. Again, much of your case presentation grade will depend on how succinctly
and completely you identify and discuss these Lessons Learned. Again, identify and explain
the case’s key legal and common-sense principles as Lessons Learned.
Helpful Hints – The case presentation should contain a succinct but thorough statement of the
facts; (1) a summary of the plaintiff’s arguments; (2) a summary of the defendant’s arguments;
(3) succinct statement of the legal and factual issues that the court is being asked to decide; (4)
a critically analyzed statement explaining the decision and its supporting rationale, specifically
detailing the court’s rationale and reasoning; and (5) provide in-depth statement, explanation and
discussion of the Lessons Learned and there potential ramifications. As case material is
completely testable, it is imperative that that all of the above be thoroughly explained. The
Lessons Learned are also likely but not exclusive sources of potential examination questions.
Remember, the grade of your case will depend on how succinctly and completely you identify
and discuss the case issues/concepts. A simple who won is NOT sufficient.
AVOID USING PLAINTIFF OR DEFENDANT MORE THAN TWICE IN THE POWER
POINT PRESENTATION. – use the parties names. DO NOT CUT AND PASTE FROM THE
CASE AND TO DEFINE ALL LEGAL TERMS THAT YOU USE.
MAKE YOUR POWERPOINT EASY TO READ – NOT ONE HUGE PARAGRAPH!
I STRONGLY SUGGEST THAT YOU DEFINE ANY LEGAL TERMS THAT YOU
USE IN YOUR CASE even better if you reference the text by page number.
Nowak By and Through Nowak v. Faberge USA Inc., 32 F.3d 755 (1994)
Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 13,947
initially question of law to be answered by trial
judge.
32 F.3d 755
United States Court of Appeals,
Third Circuit.
Alison NOWAK, a minor by and through her
parent and natural guardian Leo NOWAK; Amy
Nowak, a minor by and through her parent
and natural guardian, Leo Nowak; Elizabeth
Nowak, individually; Leo Nowak, individually
v.
FABERGE USA INC., t/d/b/a Aquanet,
a/k/a Faberge International, a/k/a
Marimo Inc.; Precision Valve Corporation
Faberge U.S.A., Inc., t/d/b/a Aqua
Net, a/k/a Faberge International, a/k/
a Marimo, Inc., Appellant in 92–7660.
1 Cases that cite this headnote
[2]
Supplier of product is guarantor of its safety.
[3]
Synopsis
Minor who was injured after puncturing hair spray can
brought product liability suit against manufacturer. The
United States District Court for the Middle District of
Pennsylvania, William J. Nealon, J., 812 F.Supp. 492, entered
judgment on jury verdict against manufacturer and denied
motions for judgment n.o.v. or new trial. Appeal was taken.
The Court of Appeals, Roth, Circuit Judge, held that, while
threshold determination by trial judge that product was
defective as matter of law should be made explicitly, trial
judge may make determination implicitly by sending case to
jury.
2 Cases that cite this headnote
[4]
4 Cases that cite this headnote
[5]
Warnings or
2 Cases that cite this headnote
[6]
Under Pennsylvania law, whether product is
defective under facts alleged by plaintiff is
Products Liability
Instructions
Under Pennsylvania strict liability law, defect
may be in warnings given for use of product
as well as in design of that product; product
may be defective if it is distributed without
sufficient warnings to notify ultimate user of
dangers inherent in product.
West Headnotes (8)
Products Liability
Nature of Product and
Existence of Defect or Danger
Products Liability
Nature of Product and
Existence of Defect or Danger
To determine whether product is defective under
Pennsylvania law, trial judge first considers
whether, as matter of law, risk of loss should
be placed on manufacturer and, if so, then case
goes to jury to determine whether facts alleged
by plaintiff are true.
Affirmed.
[1]
Products Liability
Nature of Product and
Existence of Defect or Danger
Product is considered “defective” if product left
supplier’s control lacking any element necessary
to make it safe for its intended use or possessing
any feature that renders it unsafe for intended
use.
Faberge U.S.A., Inc., Appellant in 93–7051.
Nos. 92–7660, 93–7051.
|
Argued July 2, 1993.
|
Decided July 6, 1994.
Products Liability
Nature of Product and
Existence of Defect or Danger
Products Liability
Instructions
Warnings or
Under Pennsylvania law, determination of
whether product is defective as result of
© 2020 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
1
Nowak By and Through Nowak v. Faberge USA Inc., 32 F.3d 755 (1994)
Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 13,947
inadequate warnings is initially question of law
to be answered by trial judge.
2 Cases that cite this headnote
[7]
Products Liability
Nature of Product and
Existence of Defect or Danger
While, under Pennsylvania law, determination
by trial judge that product is defective as matter
of law should be made explicitly, trial judge
may implicitly make threshold determination
that product is defective by sending case to jury.
7 Cases that cite this headnote
[8]
Products Liability
Nature of Product and
Existence of Defect or Danger
If product manufacturer desires explicit ruling
from trial judge that, under Pennsylvania law,
product is defective, before judge sends case to
jury, it is manufacturer’s burden to request that
determination.
Attorneys and Law Firms
*755 Michael J. Cefalo (argued), Lesa S. Gelb, Kurt J.
Kwak, Cefalo & Associates, West Pittston, PA, for appellees.
Ernest J. Bernabei, III, Harvey, Pennington, Herting &
Renneisen, Ltd., Patrick T. Ryan (argued), Alfred W. Putnam,
Jr., *756 Lawrence A. Nathanson, Drinker, Biddle & Reath,
Philadelphia, PA, for appellant.
Before: BECKER, ALITO and ROTH, Circuit Judges.
OPINION OF THE COURT
ROTH, Circuit Judge:
This case arises from a tragic accident involving appellant
Faberge’s hair spray product, Aqua Net. The appellee Alison
Nowak punctured an aerosol can of Aqua Net near a flame
and suffered severe injuries from the resulting fire. The jury
found that a defective valve system and inadequate warnings
on the hair spray can proximately caused Alison’s injuries.
She was awarded damages of $1.5 million.
Appellant Faberge contends that the district court failed to
make a ruling as a matter of law that the product was
defective. Under Pennsylvania tort law, the district court was
required on the basis of the averments made by the plaintiff
to determine whether or not Faberge’s product was defective,
both as to the valve system and as to the warnings on the
can, prior to sending the case to the jury for its deliberations
on whether the facts in evidence supported these averments.
The district court did not explicitly make the findings as to
defect. However, we conclude that under Pennsylvania law
the district court could implicitly make these determinations
by the fact that it sent the case to the jury. Appellant Faberge
bore the burden of requesting an explicit ruling on this issue
if it desired one.
The parties do not contest the main facts. Faberge
manufactures Aqua Net hair spray worldwide in both aerosol
and non-aerosol pump spray containers. Aqua Net contains a
mixture of butane or propane, as the aerosol propellant, and
alcohol, as a solvent for the propellant and the hair-holding
agent. Alcohol is flammable and both propane and butane
are extremely flammable. Aerosol cans of Aqua Net carry
a warning on the back stating, among other things, “Do not
puncture” and “Do not use near fire or flame.”
On April 3, 1989, Alison Nowak, a fourteen-year-old girl,
tried to spray her hair with a newly-purchased aerosol can of
Aqua Net. The spray valve would not work properly. Alison
decided to cut open the can with a can opener. She thought
she could then pour the contents into an empty pump bottle of
Aqua Net which had a working spray mechanism. Alison was
standing in the kitchen near a gas stove when she punctured
the can. A cloud of hair spray gushed from the can and the
stove’s pilot light ignited the spray into a ball of flame. Alison
suffered severe, permanently disfiguring burns over 20% of
her body.
Alison, along with her parents and her twin sister, filed
suit against Faberge. They claimed that Alison’s injuries had
three causes: a manufacturing defect in the nozzle valve
of the aerosol can, inadequate warnings on the can, and a
defect in the design of the hair spray because it included
a flammable solvent and propellant. The Nowaks also filed
a separate suit against Precision Valve Corporation which
had designed, manufactured, and sold the valve mechanism
used on the can. The two lawsuits were consolidated and
tried together. At trial the district court granted Precision
Valve’s motion for a directed verdict because plaintiffs had
© 2020 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
2
Nowak By and Through Nowak v. Faberge USA Inc., 32 F.3d 755 (1994)
Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 13,947
not demonstrated that the valve was defective at the time it
left Precision Valve’s control. The district court also directed
verdicts against Alison’s parents and sister on their claims
against Faberge.
At the conclusion of the presentation of evidence, the district
court submitted the case to the jury on special interrogatories:
1) Was the valve system in the product defective when it was
distributed for sale by the defendant, Faberge? 2) Was the
product defective because it contained a flammable solvent
and propellant? 3) Was the product defective because it did
not contain adequate warnings? The jury answered “No” to
the second question, but it answered “Yes” to the first and
third questions, finding further that these particular defects
were each a proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries. The jury
awarded $1.5 million in damages to Alison. On November 13,
1992, the district court denied Faberge’s motions for judgment
n.o.v. and for a new trial. 812 F.Supp. 492. This appeal
followed.
*757 The district court’s jurisdiction over this case rested
on 28 U.S.C. § 1332. This Court’s jurisdiction arises from
28 U.S.C. § 1291. The parties agree that Pennsylvania law
governs this case. Federal courts sitting in diversity “must
apply the substantive law of the state whose laws govern the
action.” Robertson v. Allied Signal, Inc., 914 F.2d 360, 378
(3d Cir.1990) (citing Erie R.R. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 58
S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188 (1938)). This Court’s review of the
district court’s decision to submit the issues of product defect
and causation to the jury is plenary.
alleged by the plaintiff, then the case goes to the jury for a
determination as to whether the facts alleged by the plaintiff
are true. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has stated this
proposition clearly:
Should an ill-conceived design which
exposes the user to the risk of harm
entitle one injured by the product to
recover? … [This is a question] of
law and [its] resolution depends upon
social policy…. It is a judicial function
to decide whether, under plaintiff’s
averment of the facts, recovery would
be justified; and only after the judicial
determination is made is the case
submitted to the jury to determine
whether the facts of the case support
the averments of the complaint.
Azzarello, 391 A.2d at 1025–26.
[5] [6] Under Pennsylvania strict liability law, a defect may
be in the warnings given for the use of the product as well
as in the design of that product. A product can be held to
be defective “if it is distributed without sufficient warnings
to notify the ultimate user of the dangers inherent in the
product.” Mackowick, 575 A.2d at 102. In Mackowick, the
Pennsylvania Supreme Court reaffirmed Azzarello, explicitly
holding that the determination that a product is defective
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4] Under Pennsylvania law, whether a
because of inadequate warnings is initially a question of law
product is defective under the facts alleged by the plaintiff is
to be answered by the trial judge. Id. See also Mazur v. Merck
initially a question of law to be answered by the trial judge.
& Co., 964 F.2d 1348, 1366 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S.
Mackowick v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 525 Pa. 52, 575 A.2d
974, 113 S.Ct. 463, 121 L.Ed.2d 371 (1992).
100, 102 (1990). The supplier of a product is the guarantor
of its safety. A product is considered to be defective “where
[7] Our review of the record in this case demonstrates
the product left the supplier’s control lacking any element
that the trial judge did not make an explicit determination,
necessary to make it safe for its intended use or possessing any
prior to sending the case to the jury, that Faberge’s product
feature that renders it unsafe for the intended use.” Azzarello
was defective, either as to the spray mechanism or as to
v. Black Bros. Co., 480 Pa. 547, 391 A.2d 1020, 1027 (1978).
the warnings on the can. The Nowaks argue that the judge
The determination of whether a product is defective under
implicitly made the necessary threshold legal finding in three
Pennsylvania law is a two-stage inquiry. Id. 391 A.2d at
ways: by sending the case to the jury, by denying Faberge’s
1025–26; Griggs v. BIC, 981 F.2d 1429, 1432 (3d Cir.1992).
motion for a directed verdict, and by ruling against one of
Initially, the question of whether a product is defective, given
Faberge’s motions in limine that challenged the Nowaks’
the facts as alleged by the plaintiff, is a question of law to
ability to present evidence on the inadequacy of the warning.
be answered by the trial judge. If the judge determines as
The Nowaks also argue that Faberge failed to request a
a matter of law that Pennsylvania’s social policy supports
specific ruling by the judge that its product was defective.
placing the risk of loss on the manufacturer in the situation
© 2020 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
3
Nowak By and Through Nowak v. Faberge USA Inc., 32 F.3d 755 (1994)
Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 13,947
Based on our reading of Pennsylvania law and our review of
the record, these arguments are valid.
Faberge asserts that the Azzarello threshold determination
by the trial court should be made explicitly. We agree that
this is desirable. Given the many complex and fact-based
considerations involved, requiring an explicit ruling by trial
courts on this often difficult question of social policy would
increase the instructive value of the holding for other courts,
for potential plaintiffs, and for manufacturers who seek
guidance from the courts’ products liability decisions. Explicit
*758 rulings would also improve the clarity of the trial
court record for purposes of appellate review. 1 However,
the Pennsylvania Superior Court, sitting in banc in review
of a strict liability case, has held that the Azzarello threshold
determination can be made implicitly:
Nothing in Azzarello precludes a manufacturer or supplier,
by appropriate motion, from asking the trial court to make
explicit its ruling on the threshold determination of social
policy that Azzarello requires. In the absence of such a
motion, it will be presumed that the court, by permitting the
case to go to the jury, resolved the threshold determination
against the defendant.
Dambacher by Dambacher v. Mallis, 336 Pa.Super. 22, 485
A.2d 408, 423 n. 6 (1984) (in banc), appeal dismissed,
508 Pa. 643, 500 A.2d 428 (1985). In another recent
Pennsylvania Superior Court case, also reviewing a trial
court’s decision in a strict liability action, the court noted:
[T]he record below contains no
indication that such an analysis
was undertaken by the lower court.
While our prior cases have not
explicitly required as of yet an
on-the-record analysis, or even a
reference that a risk-utility analysis
was made, we note that either
would facilitate an appellate court’s
analysis.
Marshall v. Philadelphia Tramrail, 426 Pa.Super. 156, 626
A.2d 620, 625 n. 2 (1993).
This Court gives “due regard” to the decisions of
Pennsylvania’s intermediate appellate courts as “indicia of
how the state’s highest court would decide a matter.”
Ciccarelli v. Carey Canadian Mines, Ltd., 757 F.2d 548,
553 n. 3 (3d Cir.1985). Based on the Pennsylvania Superior
Court’s statements in Dambacher and Marshall and our
review of the record here, we conclude that the district court,
by sending the case to the jury, implicitly made the necessary
threshold ruling required under Azzarello.
[8] Given Dambacher, we also hold that, if Faberge had
desired an explicit ruling on defect, it bore the burden of
requesting such a determination by the trial judge. Our
examination of the record here has uncovered no such request.
We note that a federal district court in this circuit, in a strict
liability case applying Pennsylvania law, has held, in response
to a motion by the defendant requesting a specific threshold
ruling under Azzarello, that: “If a request is made by a party,
the trial judge should be required to articulate the reasons
for his/her decision on the question of ‘social policy’….”
Shetterly v. Crown Controls Corp., 719 F.Supp. 385, 388
(W.D. Pa.1989) (citing Dambacher, 485 A.2d at 423 n. 6).
We once again urge that implicit rulings not be utilized.
Indeed, we have previously criticized a district court for
making the determination that a product was defective in the
form of an evidentiary ruling. We noted in that case that:
We are puzzled by the district
court’s decision to make this legal
determination in the posture of
an evidentiary ruling. The legal
determination of whether a product
is “unreasonably dangerous” under
Pennsylvania law is tantamount to—
and should more appropriately have
been—a ruling made upon motion
for summary judgment or a directed
verdict.
Childers v. Joseph, 842 F.2d 689, 696 n. 7 (3d Cir.1988).
While the Pennsylvania courts have so far held that the
threshold social policy ruling required by Azzarello can be
made implicitly, appellate review benefits from a clear and
explicit ruling by the trial court. The threshold decision
concerning whether a product is defective as a matter of law
can be difficult to make: “In making this determination, the
judge acts as a combination social philosopher and risk-utility
analyst.” Ellis v. Chicago Bridge & Iron Co., 376 Pa.Super.
© 2020 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
4
Nowak By and Through Nowak v. Faberge USA Inc., 32 F.3d 755 (1994)
Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 13,947
220, 545 A.2d 906 (1988). Courts and commentators *759
have suggested several factors to be considered in making this
complex determination. See Dambacher, 485 A.2d at 423 n.
5. 2 See also Azzarello, 480 Pa. 547, 391 A.2d at 1025–26;
Lobianco v. Property Protection, Inc., 292 Pa.Super. 346, 437
A.2d 417, 424–25 (1981). We reiterate that a specific ruling
by the district court on these factors, whether the claimed
defect be of design or of inadequate warning, would facilitate
our review.
For the reasons stated above, however, we find that the district
court implicitly made the threshold risk-utility determination
that appellant’s product was defective under the facts, as…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment