| Richard Jone, et al v. The Coleman Company, Inc. | |
|
Style of Case: |
Richard Jone, et al v. The Coleman Company, Inc. |
|
Client: |
The Coleman Company, Inc. |
|
Our File Number: |
6925.09922 |
|
Date of Trial: |
August 30, 2004 - September 9, 2004 |
|
Court: |
St. Louis City Circuit Court |
|
Cause Number: |
992-08775B |
|
Judge: |
The Honorable Philip Heagney |
|
RPS lawyer who tried this case: |
|
|
Case Details |
|
|
Richard Jone, 38 and his 31-year-old nephew, Caryieng Lam, went camping on
October 10, 1999. They were sleeping in a new tent and using a propane
lantern that Jone had purchased in 1982. Jone woke up with a severe headache
and found Lam dead in the tent. Coroner's report showed Lam had a 62 percent
carboxyhemoglobin level confirming death from carbon monoxide poisoning.
Jone was initially taken to a hospital in Quincy, IL and then airlifted to a
hospital in St. Louis where he received hyperbaric treatments, showing a 7.7
percent carboxyhemoglobin level. Jone claims he suffered "residual memory
loss" and depression. He treated about a month and later saw a
neuropsychologist, but had no significant residual brain damage. Jone and
Lam's relatives sued for products liability.
Plaintiffs contended that the Coleman propane canister used to fuel the lantern was defective due to an inadequate warning regarding carbon monoxide. Jone acknowledge that they did not read the warnings on the canister, but testified that if there had been a specific carbon monoxide warning, they would not have used the lantern in the tent. Coleman argued the warning on the canister - which stated that "ample ventilation must be provided," that it should not be used if it was "damaged or modified" and specifically referred to the possibility of carbon monoxide poisoning - was adequate. Coleman also argued that Jone and Lam ignored both the carbon monoxide warnings printed inside the tent and in the tent instructions, and also the warning about ample ventilation and depletion of oxygen in the instruction manual for the camping stove they used in the tent. In addition, Coleman argued it was not liable because the lantern had been modified, causing the dome to sit down completely on the glass globe and keeping air from entering the lantern burning area. Plaintiffs initially sued Coleman as the lantern manufacturer but abandoned that claim when Coleman proved otherwise. The plaintiffs also sued the tent manufacturer, Jinwoong, Inc., and Wal-Mart, the retailer, for inadequate tent warnings. Jinwoong and Wal-Mart settled before trial. |
|
| Last Demand: | $ 5 Million |
| Last Offer: | Zero |
| Verdict: | At the conclusion of the eight-day trial, the plaintiffs asked the jury to return a verdict between $6 million and $8 million. After deliberating for less than two hours, the jury returned a unanimous defense verdict. |
|
|
|