Settlement Amount:
$1.41 million

Case Name:
JOHNNIE BOESENBERG v.
WINDOWMASTER PRODUCTS, INC., et al.

Case Number:
San Diego City Superior Court, No. 638 479

Plaintiff:
Johnnie Boesenberg

Defendants:
Windowmaster Products, Inc., et al.

Facts and Background:
On November 1, 1988 Plaintiff, age 22 months, fell from the screened
window of his bedroom to the pavement two stories below. No one
was in the room with the child at the time. The window screen did
not tear, but the frame and screen fell to the ground along with
the child. Defendant Windowmaster designed/manufactured the
window and screen. The screen was of the aluminum frame type that
sits in a track outside the glass window. The window and screen
were installed in a apartment building owned/operated by
Defendant Singleton at the time of Plaintiff’s accident. The
building was built and owned by DeLuca Enterprises prior to the
accident.

Plaintiff’s Contentions:
That the presence of a window screen in an open window created an
"illusion of security" in the minds of both children and adults; that
the window screen that caused Plaintiff’s injuries was
defectively designed because it failed to incorporate a warning
label alerting the ultimate users of the product, parents and
caretakers of young children, to the substantial risk of injury
to young children created by this "illusion of security" and
occasioned by a window screen’s foreseeable use. Plaintiffs also
asserted that Defendant Windowmaster was negligent because it had
actual knowledge of the substantial risk of injury occasioned by
the foreseeable use of its window screens but failed to use
reasonable care to warn consumers of these risks; that instead of
placing a warning label directly on the screen, Windowmaster
included a warning in product literature designed to be used
exclusively by dealers, not consumers. When Plaintiff deposed
Defendant’s expert, Frank Fitzgerald, he acknowledged that at the
time the window was manufactured the trend in the industry was to
place a warning label on the window.

Defendant’s Contentions:
Contended by Windowmaster that the screen was not defective as a
matter of law; that it was not defective in design because it
performed as an ordinary consumer would expect a window screen to
perform; that it is common knowledge that a window screen is
designed to keep insects out, not to provide for the retention of
persons or objects from within. Windowmaster further contended
that any warning label in the screen would have been unnecessary
and ineffectual as consumers are already aware of the dangers of
young children occasioned by a window screen on an open window;
that any duty to warn was fulfilled by warning authorized
dealers; that the absence of a warning label on the screen was
not a substantial factor in bringing about Plaintiff’s
injuries.

Damages:
Fractured skull, epidural hematoma, brain contusion requiring
removal of a portion of the temporal lobe of brain, resulting in
severe spastic quadriparesis which, for the most part, is
permanent and largely irreversible.