Ps administrators of the estate of Marlo Strum brought suit against a local boy's club, a pest control company, and D, the manufacturer of a rodenticide called 'Talon-G.' Ps sued D under both negligence and strict liability theories, alleging that Talon-G was defectively designed and had been inadequately labeled. Marlo died from ingesting an unknown amount of Talon-G. Marlo found the poison in a cabinet in an unmarked container at the boy's club serviced by the pest control company. Ps presented expert evidence at trial that D could have added an emetic or an aversive agent to the poison that would have no effect on the product as a rat poison. Rats cannot vomit, so an emetic would be of no consequence, but it would induce immediate vomiting in a child. The aversive would have made the poison unpalatable to a child, but with no effect on rats. The jury found against D and awarded Ps, in addition to compensatory damages (set off against amounts received from the other defendants), punitive damages in the amount of $1 million. The Court of Appeals reversed the judgment on the basis that the evidence was not sufficient to support a finding that Talon-G was defectively or negligently designed and that Ps' failure to warn claim was preempted by Federal law. Ps appealed.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The applicable rule of law for this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.