Determining liability under Louisiana Product Liability Act for manufacturer of product is based on who actual manufacturer is and entities that label product as their own and/or hold themselves out as manufacturer of product.

The plaintiff sued the defendant, International Wholesale Club (IWC), and many other defendants after he suffered injuries, including burns to his face, while lighting a cigar with an MK lighter. The plaintiff alleged that all the named defendants were manufacturers of the lighter. However, IWC’s owner argued to the contrary. The company is a wholesaler that sells products to over 800 convenience stores in Louisiana and Mississippi. The owner further testified during his deposition that, while the company does purchase lighters from another defendant in the case, the MI lighter is bought by the brick and no alterations are made upon receipt prior to distribution. The plaintiff emphasized that IWC publishes a catalog that has pictures of lighters, even though there are no identifying details regarding the manufacturers in the catalog. Ultimately, IWC filed for summary judgment, but their motion was denied. 

Upon IWC’s filing an application for review, the Louisiana 5th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision and granted the motion. The court based its decision on the analysis of the manufacturer of the subject lighter. Under the Louisiana Product Liability Act (LPLA), a manufacturer is defined as the entity who actually manufactures the product and any entity that labels the product as his own or otherwise holds himself out as a manufacturer (apparent manufacturers). 

In this case, the plaintiff failed to establish that IWC was an actual or apparent manufacturer of the MK lighter. First, the plaintiff filed a supplemental—and ultimately superseding—petition that alleged a manufacturer for the lighters (MK Lighter Company) but did not name IWC as an affiliate of that manufacturer. Second, the plaintiff did not allege that IWC had any relationship or connection to the identified manufacturer or any other manufacturer of the lighter. Further, there is no case law that indicates that a distributer has to identify the manufacturer of a product in order to avoid liability as an apparent manufacturer. Lastly, the court did not find that the defendant’s use of a photograph of a lighter in their company catalog created a genuine issue of material fact as to whether IWC was an apparent manufacturer of the light. Notably, the court also discussed that the defendant was not selling the products or sharing its catalog for the consuming public. It was a wholesaler for convenience stores. Thus, reasonable consumers would not be led to believe IWC was the manufacturer of the subject lighter.

As such, the trial court’s ruling was reversed and the motion was granted. 
 

^{Case Law Alerts, 1st Quarter, April 2022 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2022 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.}