Falling Out of Loft Bed 'Obvious' Danger, Court Says

A manufacturer of a loft bed sold to a New Jersey college had no duty to warn a student about the risks of falling out of the bed because the risk was obvious, a state appeals court has ruled.

The appeals panel vacated a jury verdict awarding the plaintiff $179,000 in damages.

According to an opinion issued by the panel, Donald Mathews filed a products liability, design, manufacturing and warning defect suit against University Loft Co. after falling from his loft bed while a student at Stockton State College.

The Burlington County Superior Court dismissed all claims except for failure to warn.

The trial court said a defense statement that the dangers of a loft bed are "open and obvious" was insufficient as a matter of law, and a jury should decide whether a warning label or safety barrier on the bed was necessary.

Mathews' expert testified that there have been more than 8,000 reported falls from bunk or loft beds by people older than 15, and such a risk should prompt the manufacturer to provide a barrier to prevent a sleeping occupant from rolling or sliding out of the bed.

Absent a barrier, industry standards require the manufacturer to affix a warning alerting the occupant of the danger, the expert said.

The expert asserted that the danger of falling from the bed was not obvious.

"When awake, you can exercise caution and avoid the edge of the bed; when asleep you cannot," he said.

The defendant argued that the potential danger to an adult user was open and obvious and did not require any warning.

The jury found in Mathews' favor and awarded $179,000 in damages, including prejudgment interest and costs.

On appeal University Loft raised several issues alleging judicial error, including that summary judgment should have been granted on the failure-to-warn claim, which would have dismissed the case in its entirety.

The New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division agreed with the company that the trial court erred in not granting the motion for summary judgment on the failure-to-warn claim.

The panel said the manufacturer had no duty to warn of the danger of falling from the loft bed because the danger was "open and obvious," and the obviousness of the danger was an absolute defense to the plaintiff's failure-to-warn claim.