An interesting case involving disclosures required by a manufacturer was recently decided in the State of California. The plaintiff in the action against the defendant, a manufacturer and seller of fire safety products, claimed that the defendant failed to disclose the hazards of ionized and photoelectric smoke alarms (smoke detectors) that they manufactured and sold. The plaintiff’s claim was directed at an ionization smoke alarm. The packaging on the defendant’s ionization smoke alarm stated that ionization smoke alarms are more sensitive at detecting fast-flaming fires, while photoelectric smoke alarms are generally more sensitive at detecting smoldering-type fires. The packaging stated: “For maximum protection, use both types of smoke alarms on each level and in every bedroom of your home.” The plaintiff purchased an ionization-only smoke alarm from a hardware store for her home. Notwithstanding the statements that appeared on the packaging, the plaintiff alleged that, “the smoke detector packaging and labeling did not contain any warnings, instructions, or other information disclosing, describing, or warning about the smoke detector’s inability to adequately, effectively, and safely detect, warn, alert and protect occupants from smoldering-type fires.”
The defendant manufacturer responded by requesting that the court dismiss the complaints. The defendant argued that all causes of action on behalf of the plaintiff must be dismissed because the packaging on the ionization smoke alarm disclosed the information that plaintiff claimed was not disclosed.