 Not under these circumstances ruled the Maryland Appeals Court. The maker should have foreseen that a garment of this type might occasionally be worn inside out and that it might come in contact with a stove or heater. Rhoda may have been a little careless, but this does not add up to misuse on her part. The manufacturer breached their implied warranty of suitability by not making it fire retardant. Rhoda is entitled to damages. It's a point of law.