Maryland Court Refuses to Dismiss Punitive Damages in Harbor Freight Tool Injury Case

At Ketterer, Browne & Davani (KBD) Attorneys, we closely follow developments in product liability litigation—especially when they directly involve our clients and attorneys. A recent decision out of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland underscores the seriousness of defective tool claims and the importance of holding manufacturers accountable.

In Halsey v. Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc., the court denied Harbor Freight’s attempt to dismiss punitive damages in a consumer injury case. KBD attorney Robert E. Price represents the injured consumer, and the ruling marks an important step forward in ensuring that victims of dangerous products have the opportunity to seek the full scope of justice available under Maryland law.

Background: The Harbor Freight Breaker Bar Incident

The case centers on a Pittsburgh Pro 3/8-inch-drive, 18-inch-long ratcheting breaker bar, a tool marketed for high-force torque applications such as loosening lug nuts. While using the product, the plaintiff, Tony Halsey, suffered severe and permanent eye injuries when the breaker bar fractured and launched a shard of metal into his eye.

According to the complaint, Harbor Freight had “actual knowledge” of the tool’s defects but continued to sell it without changing the design or providing adequate warnings. The lawsuit further alleges that Harbor Freight trained its employees to misrepresent the breaker bar as “durable” and of “good quality,” despite known safety risks.

Based on these allegations, Mr. Halsey filed claims for design defect, manufacturing defect, failure to warn, breach of warranties, and negligence—and sought both compensatory and punitive damages.

The Court’s Ruling on Punitive Damages

Harbor Freight argued that the request for punitive damages should be dismissed, claiming it lacked specificity and could not be supported because the consumer had disregarded certain product warnings.

Judge Ellen L. Hollander disagreed. Citing established Maryland precedent, she explained that punitive damages in product liability cases may be available when a manufacturer has actual knowledge of a defect and deliberately disregards the consequences of that risk.

The court found that Mr. Halsey had sufficiently alleged actual malice by asserting that Harbor Freight:

Knew the breaker bar was prone to fracturing and expelling dangerous projectiles;
Continued to sell the product without design changes or consumer warnings; and
Actively misrepresented the product’s durability and quality.
Importantly, Harbor Freight did not seek dismissal of the underlying claims for defect and negligence. Because those claims remain intact, the court held that the request for punitive damages could not be dismissed at this early stage.

This ruling keeps alive the possibility that a jury could one day award punitive damages, which are designed to punish a company for egregious misconduct and deter future wrongdoing.

Maryland Law on Punitive Damages

Under Maryland law, punitive damages are reserved for cases involving “actual malice”—defined as conscious and deliberate wrongdoing, intent to injure, or fraudulent behavior. In product liability cases, this standard is met when a manufacturer continues selling a product despite knowledge of its dangerous defects.

As Judge Hollander noted, Maryland courts treat punitive damages as substantive in nature, meaning they can only be dismissed if the underlying claims fail or cannot legally support such damages. Because Mr. Halsey’s claims are proceeding, the punitive damages request rightfully remains on the table.

Robert Price and KBD’s Role

KBD Attorney Robert E. Price is leading the case on behalf of Mr. Halsey. With deep experience in defective product litigation, Robert has built a reputation for standing up to large manufacturers and fighting for consumers who suffer life-altering injuries due to unsafe products.

This decision reflects not just a procedural win, but also KBD’s broader mission: ensuring that injured individuals have every avenue for recovery, including punitive damages where appropriate. By holding Harbor Freight accountable for knowingly marketing dangerous tools, this litigation could help protect future consumers from similar injuries.

Harbor Freight and Prior Safety Concerns

This is not the first time Harbor Freight has faced questions about product safety. In the past, the company has issued recalls for jack stands, chainsaws, and other tools after reports of dangerous malfunctions. KBD has monitored these issues closely, as they highlight an ongoing pattern of consumer safety concerns.

Our team has previously written about these recalls, warning consumers of the risks posed by defective tools and emphasizing the importance of manufacturer accountability. The Halsey case fits into this broader pattern, showing why legal oversight and consumer advocacy remain so critical.

Why This Case Matters for Consumers

The court’s decision is significant beyond just one lawsuit. It highlights a few key points every consumer should know:

• Defective tools can cause catastrophic injuries. Even everyday hardware can become life-threatening if poorly designed or manufactured.
• Manufacturers may be liable for punitive damages. When companies knowingly disregard risks, Maryland law allows juries to impose punishment, not just compensation.
• Legal representation is crucial. Cases like this involve complex questions of law and evidence. Skilled attorneys, like those at KBD, help ensure injured consumers can pursue every available remedy.

Looking Ahead

The case against Harbor Freight will now proceed, with punitive damages still on the table. For Mr. Halsey, the litigation represents an opportunity for justice after a devastating injury. For other consumers, it serves as a reminder to stay vigilant about product safety and to know that legal remedies exist when manufacturers fail to protect the public.

At Ketterer, Browne & Davani, we remain committed to pursuing justice for those harmed by defective tools, medical devices, and consumer products. As developments in this case unfold, we will continue to share updates and insights.

Source: VitalLaw – Tool maker denied dismissal of punitive damages request in consumer’s injury case.