An HVAC technician suffered permanent eye damage when a defective pump sprayer failed during routine work. The hose connection blew off under pressure, shooting a stream of sodium hydroxide directly into his eye. Despite aggressive defense tactics, our attorneys secured $750,000 for his injuries.
The case involved proving the sprayer’s hose connection design was defective, despite defense arguments that our client wasn’t wearing proper eye protection and had used the product contrary to warning labels. This settlement is significantly above the typical range for eye injury cases, which generally fall between $50,000 and $300,000 depending on severity.
Case Details:
Client: Air-Conditioning Repairman
Practice Area: Personal Injury / Defective Products
Time Frame: 1 year from filing to settlement
Attorneys: Jason Melancon and Robert Rimes
Our client purchased a manual pump sprayer to spray sodium hydroxide (a standard coil-cleaning chemical) onto air-conditioning coils. While spraying the coils, the hose dislodged from the pump and shot a pressurized stream of chemicals directly into our client’s eye. He sustained permanent damage to his vision.
MRD attorneys filed a defective products action against the major pump sprayer manufacturing company in the 14th Judicial District Court for the Parish of Calcasieu.
This was an extremely difficult product liability case. The defense presented two primary challenges:
Safety Equipment Challenge
Our client was wearing safety glasses, not goggles, at the time of the injury. The defense argued this constituted a comparative fault. However, under OSHA standards, while goggles are recommended for chemical splash protection, the primary responsibility lies with the manufacturer to prevent the product failure in the first place. Safety equipment is a secondary line of defense.
Warning Label Defense
Warning labels on the sprayer expressly excluded the use of sodium hydroxide. However, we successfully argued that under Louisiana’s “reasonably anticipated use” doctrine, manufacturers cannot ignore how their products are actually used in the marketplace. In the HVAC industry, pump sprayers are the standard tool for applying coil cleaner, and sodium hydroxide is the standard ingredient in coil cleaner. The manufacturer sold this tool to HVAC professionals while simultaneously prohibiting the trade’s primary chemical, creating what the court recognized as a “trap for the unwary.”
Core Product Defects Identified:
We retained qualified products liability experts to examine both the mechanical design and the warning system:
Design Expert: Testified that the hose connection design was mechanically insufficient. The sprayer relied solely on a friction-fit barb to contain pressurized hazardous chemicals. When exposed to sodium hydroxide, the hose material degraded, reducing grip strength. Under normal operating pressure (15-45 PSI for manual sprayers), the weakened connection failed catastrophically. Our expert demonstrated that the product lacked positive retention mechanisms, such as hose clamps or compression fittings, that would have prevented the blow-off failure.
Warnings Expert: Testified that the warning labels were “defective and unreadable.” The warnings were molded into the plastic in the same color (embossed text), lacking the contrast required by industry standards. More critically, the label stated only “Do not use sodium hydroxide” without explaining the consequence: potential blindness from chemical burns. Under Louisiana Products Liability Act (La. R.S. 9:2800.57), warnings must be conspicuous, intelligible, and communicate the severity of the risk.
The medical evidence was crucial to the settlement value. Sodium hydroxide causes alkali burns, which are medically distinct from and more severe than acid burns. Alkali chemicals cause liquefactive necrosis, they literally dissolve tissue structure, allowing the chemical to penetrate deep into the eye within 3-5 minutes. This results in:
Our client required extensive medical treatment and faces ongoing complications that will require monitoring and treatment for the rest of his life.
MRD attorneys filed the defective products lawsuit in the 14th Judicial District Court for the Parish of Calcasieu and prepared aggressively for trial.
We refused the manufacturer’s pre-trial settlement offers. Our trial-ready preparation demonstrated we were willing to let a jury decide the case. During the second day of the scheduled week-long jury trial, after the defense observed the jury’s reaction to opening statements and initial testimony, we reached an amicable settlement agreement for $750,000.
The $750,000 settlement represents a significant recovery for our client. To put this in perspective:
The settlement amount reflected:
Compensation for defective product injuries includes medical expenses, lost wages, pain and suffering, loss of earning capacity, and future medical costs. In this case, our client received $750,000 for permanent eye damage, ongoing medical needs, and reduced earning capacity as an HVAC technician.
You may still have a valid claim under Louisiana’s “reasonably anticipated use” standard. In this case, we successfully argued the product was defective despite our client using a chemical the warning label excluded. If a manufacturer can reasonably expect that users will employ their product in a certain way, even if it contradicts the manual, they have a duty to design for that use or provide effective warnings.
This case took 1 year from filing to settlement. Most cases settle before trial, but we prepare every case for litigation from day one. This trial-ready approach often leads to better settlement offers, as insurers recognize we won’t accept lowball amounts.
Not in Louisiana. Under the Louisiana Products Liability Act, you only need to prove the product was “unreasonably dangerous” due to construction, design, or inadequate warnings, not that the manufacturer was careless. This makes product liability cases more straightforward than traditional negligence claims.
This settlement demonstrates that manufacturers cannot hide behind warning labels when they sell defective products. Three key takeaways:
Manufacturers must design for real-world use. If you sell a tool to HVAC professionals, you cannot prohibit the chemicals they use every day. The law recognizes that a warning stating “don’t use this for its obvious purpose” does not eliminate liability.
Safety equipment is not a shield. While wearing proper protective equipment is important, it does not excuse product defects. The manufacturer cannot blame the victim for not wearing goggles when the product itself should not have exploded.
Expert testimony is essential. Product liability cases require specialized knowledge. Our experts in mechanical engineering and human factors were critical to demonstrating why the sprayer’s design was defective and why the warnings were inadequate.
We bring over 50 years of combined legal experience to every case. Unlike many firms where junior associates handle the work, our partners, Jason Melancon and Robert Rimes, directly managed this case from initial consultation through settlement.
Our approach:
Our other significant results include a $16 million consumer fraud judgment, a $3.225 million jury verdict in Lafayette Parish, and a $1.25 million spinal injury settlement.
If you’ve suffered an injury from a defective product, contact Melancon, Rimes & Daquanno for a free consultation. We serve clients throughout the greater Baton Rouge area, including Calcasieu Parish, and surrounding Louisiana communities.
Call (225) 303-0455 to speak directly with an experienced product liability attorney about your case. Your initial consultation is completely free, and you’ll speak with one of our partners, not an associate.
Our office is located at:
6700 Jefferson Hwy (Building 6)
Baton Rouge, LA 70806
Business Hours:
Monday-Thursday: 8:30 AM – 4:30 PM
Friday: 8:30 AM – 3:30 PM
Remember: Louisiana has a one-year statute of limitations for most product liability claims. Don’t wait to protect your rights.