Andren v. White-Rodgers Co.
Minnesota Court of Appeals
465 N.W.2d 102 (1991)

- Written by Emily Laird, JD
Facts
Robert Andren (plaintiff) entered the basement of his cabin and smelled a strong smell of propane gas. Earlier, Andren had bought a used space heater for his cabin’s basement and installed it himself. As Andren evaluated the source of the gas leak, he voluntarily decided to light a cigarette. The gas exploded, and the basement caught fire. Andren was severely burned. Andren brought products-liability actions for breach of warranty, strict liability, and negligence, claiming the space heater contained a defective regulator. Andren sued White-Rodgers Co., the space-heater manufacturer, Sears, Roebuck & Co., the space-heater retailer, and Flexan Corp., the manufacturer of the space heater’s regulator (collectively, the space-heater companies) (defendants). At trial, Andren testified he was aware that the smell of propane indicated a potentially dangerous propane-gas leak. Andren testified he had installed over 100 propane-gas heaters before installing the gas heater in his cabin. Andren also testified he knew the dangers of smoking or lighting a match near propane gas. The space-heater companies moved for summary judgment, arguing that Andren assumed the risks posed by the defective space heater when he lit a cigarette in a room in which he suspected there was a propane leak. The trial court granted the motion. Andren appealed to the state appellate court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Short, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.