Indiana Man Alleges Product Liability With Flammable Cooking Spray

A man from Indiana is one of a half a dozen people alleging a food product company sold unreasonably dangerous cooking spray that exploded while in use, causing severe burns.

Local news reports indicate the Indianapolis plaintiff, a medical student, sustained burns back in March, 2019,  while cooking with his girlfriend. He spent months in the hospital and had to undergo numerous skin grafts and other surgeries after suffering burns on most of his upper body. He and other plaintiffs are now incensed the company refuses to recall the product and insists the cooking spray is safe.

Plaintiff was cooking when a can of the common spray, sitting near the stove top, reportedly exploded, erupting into a fire. As his girlfriend noted, “He’s a full-time med student. He’s educated. He’s very smart – and he had no idea.”

She said they know to keep cooking oil away from hot surfaces, especially away from a hot stove top. The can was far enough away to prevent a problem.

Through the independent testing of some personal injury law firms, a defect has been discovered in the way certain PAM spray cans were made, resulting in a serious safety hazard. While the manufacturer has altered the design of newer cooking spray cans, it has refused to issue a recall for those items already shipped – a move some injury lawyers are calling, “beyond irresponsible.”

Product Liability Litigation in Indiana

These kinds of cases are what are known as product liability claims, governed largely by the Product Liability Act, Indiana Code 34-20-1-1 through 34-20-9-1. These provisions of law cover claims filed by a user or consumer of products against manufacturers for physical injuries resulting from harm by a product.

These provisions hold that any company that puts a product into the stream of commerce for any reason that is defective/unreasonably dangerous will be subject to liability for resulting harm.

As product liability attorneys can explain, the law is drafted to allow sellers to be held responsible even if they took all reasonable care in the making and preparing of a product (a theory known as strict liability). However, if a plaintiff alleges defective design or inadequate warning/instruction for product use, then a plaintiff has to show the manufacturer/seller failed to use reasonable care based on the circumstances.

Products can be considered “defective”  if a reasonable person handling/consuming it in the way it’s intended to be used/consumed wouldn’t anticipate such danger.

Unsafe Cooking Spray Can Design

Plaintiffs suing the food company allege the company opted for the design of cans that were susceptible to explosion because they were cheaper.

Furthermore, attorneys argue, the company refused to warn people about the very serious risks – and still refuse to issue a national recall to ensure all dangerous cans are removed from store shelves so no one else suffers serious and permanent injuries due to burns/explosions.

The company insists its cans are no more dangerous than other aerosols.

In addition to Indiana, other exploding-can burn incidents have occurred the last two years in Illinois, Texas and Utah.