Sharon Degnan, of our Orlando office, prevailed on appeal in the products liability case of Grieco v. Daiho Sangyo, Inc., 2022 WL 2136932 (Fla. 4th DCA June 15, 2022), where the underlying plaintiff sustained injuries after he was struck by a vehicle driven by a young woman whom had been “huffing” computer duster spray, which she had just purchased at a nearby Wal-Mart. The plaintiff sued Wal-Mart along with the duster spray manufacturer and distributor under strict liability and negligence theories. The trial court below granted final summary judgment for Wal-Mart, the manufacturer, and the distributor, and the plaintiff appealed. Sharon argued as lead counsel on behalf of all three appellees.  In an 18-page opinion, the Fourth District Court of Appeal agreed with Sharon that, with respect to strict liability for the alleged design defect of the duster spray, the proper scope of inquiry is to consider the reasonable expectations of the consumer. In this case, the consumer was the tortfeasor, and no inference could be made that she had an ordinary expectation of the product performing safely because she had no intention of using it for its customary use. The court further re-affirmed the line of cases that holds that the manufacturer, distributor, and seller of a product cannot be held strictly liable when a third party’s injuries result from a consumer’s unintended and illegal use of a product. Regarding the plaintiff’s argument as to strict liability for the appellees’ alleged failure to warn due to a deficient warning label, the court rejected this, noting that the label stated that inhaling the product could be harmful or fatal, and explained that a bitterant was added to deter inhalation of the product. No additional warnings were needed with respect to the dangers of specifically driving while inhaling the product, as the plaintiff had argued. The last point the court addressed was the common law negligence count, which the lower court granted summary judgment on by finding that the intoxicated driver’s conduct was the sole superseding cause of the accident and injuries. The court wrote an in-depth analysis of foreseeability in the context of duty and proximate causation, and further reiterated that in some scenarios the question of proximate cause—normally one for the jury—can be a question to be resolved for the court, especially in the context of intervening negligence. The court also noted that the question of duty is not one to “the world at large” but arises out of the relationship between the specific parties, which is a more narrow inquiry, especially in cases involving the negligence of a third party.