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

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

P was a health care worker employed at St. Joseph's Hospital, where she used to work as a radiology technologist and a CT scan technologist. Hospital rules required P to wear protective gloves while attending patients. P wore powdered latex gloves manufactured by D. P used one or two pairs of gloves per shift. However, upon her promotion to the CT department, the job required her to don up to approximately forty pairs of gloves per shift. Prior to the promotion, P never experienced allergies. P's hands became red, cracked, and sore, and began peeling. In response to this condition. P applied hand lotion, changed the soap she used, changed the type of hand towels she used, and tried various other remedies; the rash continued. The rash spread to her upper trunk and neck, and she began experiencing chronic cold-like symptoms such as a runny nose and watery eyes. Things grew worse, culminating in an acute shortness of breath, coughing, and tightening of the throat. P spent significant time in the hospital: approximately one day in September 1989; approximately five days beginning in late March 1990; approximately five days in February 1991; and approximately three days beginning in late April 1991. Eventually, P was diagnosed in May 1991 with latex allergy. P had to change jobs and limit the items she purchases, the things she eats, and the activities in which she participates. P's latex allergy caused her to develop asthma, thereby further limiting her lifestyle. In 1994, P commenced the present products liability action against D, alleging that D's gloves, which she had used at St. Joseph's Hospital were defective in two respects: (1) the gloves contained excessive levels of allergy-causing latex proteins; and (2) the cornstarch with which D powdered its gloves increased the likelihood that persons would inhale the latex proteins. P conceded that the proteins in the gloves naturally occur in the rubber-tree latex from which they are produced. P also conceded that D did not add any proteins to its gloves. P argued that D could have significantly reduced the protein levels in and discontinued powdering its gloves by adjusting its production process. P alleged that the gloves created the unreasonable danger that consumers would develop latex allergy and suffer allergy-related conditions. P claimed D's gloves were the proximate cause of her damages and that D should be held strictly liable. Upon exposure to latex proteins, some persons' immune systems produce antibodies to expel those proteins. Once a person's immune system produces these antibodies, he or she is 'sensitized' to latex. Subsequent exposure to latex then may cause that person to develop progressively worse allergic reactions, including irreversible asthma and even anaphylaxis, a hypersensitivity which, upon exposure to even a small amount of latex proteins, may trigger a life-threatening allergic reaction--anaphylactic shock. The vast majority of people with latex allergy--up to 90 percent--are health care workers, with the allergy affecting between 5 and 17 percent of all health care workers in the United States. Evidence shows that high-protein, powdered latex gloves are more dangerous than low-protein, powderless gloves. Only powder-free latex gloves should be purchased and used. D's gloves were high-protein, powdered latex gloves. By expert opinion, P presented evidence that exposure to D's gloves caused her to become sensitized to latex in 1989 and subsequently caused her to develop asthma and other allergy-related conditions. As the doctor further opined, the likelihood of P having developed a latex allergy had she been exposed only to low-protein, powderless gloves would have been 'very remote.' P presented evidence that D could have eliminated the alleged unreasonably dangerous defects in its latex gloves by altering its glove production process. The court instructed the jury in part that a product is said to be defective when it is in a condition not contemplated by the ordinary user or consumer, which is unreasonably dangerous to the ordinary user or consumer, and the defect arose out of design, manufacture, or inspection while the article was in the control of the manufacturer. A defective product is unreasonably dangerous to the ordinary user or consumer when it is dangerous to an extent beyond that which would be contemplated by the ordinary user or consumer possessing the knowledge of the product's characteristics that were common to the community. A manufacturer has a duty not to place upon the market a defective product which is unreasonably dangerous to the ordinary user or consumer. Lack of knowledge on the part of D that proteins in natural rubber latex may sensitize and cause allergic reactions to some individuals is not a defense to the claims made by P. A manufacturer is responsible for harm caused by a defective and unreasonably dangerous product even if the manufacturer had no knowledge or could [not] have known of the risk of harm presented by the condition of the product. The jury found that D's gloves were defective and unreasonably dangerous. It additionally found that this defective and unreasonably dangerous condition caused P's injuries. The jury awarded P $1,000,000 in damages. D moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, a new trial, or remittitur. The circuit court denied D's motions. D appealed. The court affirmed the circuit court judgment. D appealed. D argues that the circuit court erroneously instructed the jury that: (1) a product can be deemed defective and unreasonably dangerous based solely on consumer expectations about that product; and (2) a product can be deemed defective and unreasonably dangerous regardless of whether the manufacturer of that product knew or could have known of the risk of harm the product presented to consumers.

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

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

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