The federal district court in Nevada allowed strict liability design and manufacturing defect claims over a heating pad burn to proceed against both the manufacturer and the retailer, while dismissing most of the remaining theories. The court found that the defendants' own testing and corporate testimony created genuine fact disputes on defect, but that the plaintiff could not establish causation on the content of the warnings, could not sustain a negligence claim against the retailer, and lacked clear and convincing evidence for punitive damages (Barton v. Sunbeam Products, Inc., No. 2:25-cv-00156-CDS-MDC (D. Nev. Oct. 9, 2026)).
Background. In March 2023, the plaintiff used her daughter's Sunbeam heating pad for about thirty minutes on the medium setting, placed on her upper back, to relieve back pain. She felt warmth, then burning, and afterward found a burn on her right breast. Neither the plaintiff nor her daughter saw any warnings on the pad's cord or in its box. The mother sued Sunbeam Products, Inc., Newell Brands Inc., and Newell Brands Distribution LLC (together, Sunbeam), and Walmart, Inc., for strict liability and negligence, and sought punitive damages.
The pad was designed to reach 118°F, 132°F, and 145°F (each plus or minus 15 degrees) on low, medium, and high. Sunbeam's engineer tested the subject pad and an exemplar of the same model. Both exceeded their designed temperatures and the maximum-temperature standard of Underwriters Laboratories. He attributed the subject pad's excess heat to a fold the exemplar lacked. A warning tag attached to the pad's cord stated that burns may occur regardless of control setting and that the pad is not to be used by a person with diabetes. The plaintiff had diabetes.
Expert testimony. Before reaching the merits, the court excluded the consumer's three experts, an electrical engineer, a burn surgeon, and a product safety manager, from opining on the reasonableness of the pad's designed temperatures. Reading Rule 26(a)(2)(B) according to its plain meaning, the court held that an expert must decide what information the report contains, though the expert need not personally write it. The experts reached the same conclusion in nearly identical prose, and their testimony indicated that counsel supplied the language, so the court found that counsel decided the report's content. The consumer did not argue that the violation was justified or harmless and did not request a lesser sanction, so exclusion followed under Rule 37(c)(1). The court applied the exclusion to Sunbeam's motion as well, noting it was not dispositive, and denied the consumer's motion for partial summary judgment, which relied solely on those experts. The court also declined to bar Walmart from relying on Sunbeam's experts, treating its earlier refusal to sanction Walmart as law of the case.
Design defect. The court denied summary judgment to Sunbeam, and to Walmart through its joinder, on the strict liability design defect theory. Nevada applies the consumer-expectation test, asking whether the product failed to perform as reasonably expected and was more dangerous than an ordinary user would contemplate. Sunbeam made four arguments, and the court rejected each using evidence the defendants themselves supplied.
On whether the pad performed as intended, Sunbeam's own engineer found that both the subject pad and the fold-free exemplar exceeded designed temperatures and the UL standard. Sunbeam's report also included a 1995 public health advisory reporting more than 1,600 heating pad burns treated annually in emergency rooms, and its corporate representative testified to burn complaints about similar models and to frequent burn-related depositions, albeit against 2.3 million units sold.
On whether the designed temperatures were excessive or unnecessary, the representative acknowledged third-party studies showing relief from certain pain at around 104°F, although some of that relief involved direct skin contact, unlike this covered pad. The advisory and the tag also indicated burns could occur on low settings.
On consumer expectations, the court reasoned that while the warning and the general understanding that heating pads get hot are relevant, a juror could find an ordinary user would not contemplate this kind of burn. On alternative design, the court relied on Nevada Supreme Court precedent holding that proof of an alternative design is not required.
Manufacturing defect. Summary judgment was denied to both defendants on manufacturing defect. Sunbeam argued the pad was made to specification and performed as designed except at the fold, which it attributed to misuse, and, in reply, that any temperature spike occurred on the high setting rather than the medium setting the consumer used. The court found a genuine dispute because Sunbeam's engineer attributed the spikes to the fold, yet the exemplar also overheated, and the consumer's engineer found excess temperatures without attributing them to the fold. A jury must decide whether the overheating resulted from misuse or from a defect. The court noted the result would be the same if the burden had shifted to the consumer, who attached those same reports.
Failure to warn. The court divided the failure to warn claim by theory. Nevada requires warnings to catch the consumer's attention, to be comprehensible and fairly indicate specific risks, and to be sufficiently intense. As to the warning's appearance, Sunbeam met its initial burden by pointing to an absence of evidence, but the consumer responded with a rebuttal report opining that the warning belonged on the pad itself rather than a cord tag and should have begun with a signal word in white lettering on a red background. Her own testimony that she was unsure she would have heeded a warning would have favored Sunbeam, but her daughter testified she would have called the consumer's doctor had she seen the diabetes warning. That created a fact issue as to Sunbeam.
As to the warning's content, however, Sunbeam prevailed. Because neither the consumer nor her daughter saw the warnings, reasonable minds could not differ that different wording would not have prevented the injury. The court observed that even a warning naming the consumer and predicting her injury would have made no difference. Walmart obtained summary judgment on the content theory through its joinder.
Walmart also prevailed on the appearance theory, but on a different basis. Walmart attached Barton's testimony that she could not see the pad while using it, shifting the burden, and the consumer failed to cite her daughter's testimony in her opposition to Walmart's motion.
Negligence. Sunbeam was denied summary judgment on the negligence claim. Its argument that no defect existed failed given the disputes above, and causation, ordinarily a jury question, was also disputed. Sunbeam's engineer opined that skin held above roughly 122°F for six minutes can burn, and that pads complying with the UL standard can still burn. The medium setting was designed to reach 132°F plus or minus 15, and the exemplar reached 174°F initially and 153.5°F in normal operation on medium. The court acknowledged that the consumer used the pad despite diabetes and chemotherapy and was burned on her breast though she placed the pad on her upper back, but concluded those facts did not resolve causation as a matter of law.
Walmart was, however, granted summary judgment. It offered testimony that it relied on supplier expertise and independent third-party testing, that the model met the UL standard in 2020 and 2021 and failed in 2022 and 2023 for unrelated reasons, and that it knew of no other burn reports. The consumer did not respond to that showing and argued only that Sunbeam was negligent, which the court treated as passive agreement.
Punitive damages. Both defendants obtained summary judgment on punitive damages, which under Nevada law require clear and convincing evidence of oppression, fraud, or malice. Although the consumer's evidence suggested Sunbeam knew heating pads could cause burns, Sunbeam warned consumers that burns could occur on any setting, so she could not show an intent to do wrong or a willful and deliberate failure to avoid harm. As to Walmart, she offered only an unsupported assertion that it chose profits over safety.
The court referred the surviving claims for a mandatory settlement conference.
The case is No. 2:25-cv-00156-CDS-MDC.