On July 29, 2012, plaintiff Joshua Mariscal was attempting to clean and repair a used Graco Magnum X7 Airless Paint Sprayer, given to him by his brother-in-law. The spray gun was apparently inoperative due to dry paint in its mechanism. While he tried to fix it, an “explosion” occurred, sending debris into Mariscal’s eyes, which he asserted caused serious injury. Mariscal sued Graco Inc., alleging claims of design defect, defect under the consumer expectation test, and breach of implied warranty. The claims sounded in negligence and strict liability. Mariscal contended that when he attempted to use the sprayer, it was in “tattered” condition and the filter was clogged with dried paint. Mariscal bought a new filter and cleaned the gun and the intake hoses with compressed air. He then downloaded the manual from the manufacturer’s Web site. After consulting the pressure-relief procedure section, he began following the steps in the manual, but when he released the hose-end coupling, the “explosion” occurred, sending debris into his eyes. His face was about 30 inches away from the coupling. Mariscal’s liability expert testified at trial that the sprayer was capable of generating 3000 per square inch of pressure. The instructions offer two main methods to relieve pressure – turning the valve to “prime,” or triggering the gun. The instructions do also foresee that these actions may not relieve pressure, if the gun is clogged. They state “If you suspect the spray tip or hose is clogged or that pressure has not been relieved after following the steps above, VERY SLOWLY loosen tip guard retaining nut or hose end coupling to relieve pressure gradually, then loosen completely.” However, the design of the sprayer is such that if it is clogged, there is no method of notifying the user that it is still under pressure, and thus the user may not be aware that the system is still under pressure. The argument as to defective design was that the spray gun should have had a pressure gauge that demonstrated to the user the extent of the pressure at any given time, even if clogged. (It was argued that such devices are readily available and included in similar spray guns and even subsequent models of the defendant’s spray guns. This aspect of Mariscal’s claim was barred by way of pretrial summary judgment having largely to do with the untimely disclosure of supplemental expert reports in support of this theory.) Mariscal was allowed to proceed with the theory of defect under the consumer expectation test, which involves a determination of whether the product met ordinary expectations of safety under the circumstances. Counsel for Mariscal argued that it was reasonably foreseeable that a user attempting to clear a clog in the sprayer — which involved first relieving pressure — would follow the pressure-relief procedures detailed in the manual, which Mariscal testified he did. Mariscal testified that he would not have attempted to disconnect the hose as described in the manual had he been alerted to pressure in the system, and would have worn safety glasses if there had been a specific warning on the page of the manual addressing relieving pressure or clearing clogs. Graco argued that it had provided multiple warnings in multiple locations elsewhere in the manual about the risks associated with the product and the need to wear safety glasses. Factually, the defense challenged the assertion that Mariscal was wearing safety glasses at any time leading up to the accident or that he had read the safety warnings. The company’s counsel pointed out that Mariscal had testified that while he knew it was important to wear protective gear and did so when spraying paint and when using compressed air, he did not believe the sprayer was pressurized at the time of the accident. The defense also maintained that it was in compliance with all industry standards with respect to the design of its airless paint sprayer., The exploding air pressure and debris penetrated both of Mariscal’s eyes. He received emergency treatment at a local hospital emergency room and followed with a specialist in ophthalmology. Mariscal suffers residual impaired vision in both eyes. His ability to prove increased risk to a total loss of vision in the future was barred by the trial judge for evidential reasons (having largely to do with discovery). Mariscal’s lost wage and diminished earning capacity claims were barred at trial for evidential (discovery) reasons.