Our client was a tenant in a low-income housing project whose kitchen was roach infested. Purchasing several cans of a roach spray, she followed the instructions on the cans and set them out on the kitchen floor, releasing the spray mist into the air as directed. The cans had a warning stating that the contents were flammable and that the cans should not be used near any open flame.
Our client was in the kitchen, observing the cans spray its contents, when there was a sudden explosion and fire from the spray. As a result, our client was severely burned (2nd and 3rd degree burns on her arms and legs) requiring extensive treatment at the burn center of a major hospital.
We brought an action against the manufacturer, charging that the can and spray were dangerous to an innocent user of their product. In its defense, the manufacturer claimed that there had to be a flame in order for the fire to have occurred, and charged our client with either having the stove on (which it was not), having the pilot light on, (which never worked), or that she was smoking (which she did not do). To counter the defenses, we convinced the manufacturer's attorneys that static electricity that is always present in the air (from light switches, outlets, etc.) would be sufficient to ignite a spray as dangerously flammable as the ones used by our client.
Although the scarring (some of which was Keloid) would always be present, our client, through our aggressive prosecution of the case received her full measure of justice as well as financial security for life.