Law, Business, and Society 9th Edition by Tony McAdams

Exercise 12

Twenty-year-old Stephen Pavlik died from inhaling Zeus-brand butane while trying to "get high.'' His estate sued the Zeus maker, Lane. The fuel came in a small can with a printed warning reading, "DO NOT BREATHE SPRAY.'' The plaintiff argued that the can was defective because the warning inadequately expressed the hazard. A federal district court ruled that Pavlik was aware of the danger so the warning was adequate, and in any case, a warning would have had no effect so proximate cause could not exist. That decision was appealed. How would you rule on that appeal Explain. See Pavlik v. Lane Limited, 135 F.3d 876 (3d Cir. 1998).