 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Schwoerer v. Union Oil Co.3/12/1993
t in favor of defendants stating: "Reasonable people might disagree about whether any or all of the warnings ... provided sufficient information on the extent of risks and symptoms of overexposure to defendants' products. " ( at p. 1320; Italics added.)
Plaintiff's medical evidence tends to show liver failure can result from dermal and respiratory exposure to the solvent. However, neither plaintiff's nor defendants' medical evidence addresses the question whether plaintiff's injury is a result of inhalation of fumes or of dermal exposure, or of some combination of the two.
It cannot be disputed that liver damage is far more apt to have a devastating effect on one so afflicted than is dermatitis, as to which the MSDS do warn. Since, for our purposes, defendants are assumed to have known of this devastating potential (see fn. 4, ante, p. 110) yet failed to warn against it, defendants have not shown the warnings provided in the MSDS are adequate as a matter of law.
III
Finally, defendants contend plaintiff so grossly misused their product that they are relieved of liability for any injury caused by exposure to the solvent. Defendants argue that if plaintiff had used the solvent with proper respiratory equipment and impermeable protective clothing as directed in the MSDS, he would have suffered no injury.
Given the established facts of plaintiff's misuse, defendants claim cannot be lightly dismissed. Manufacturers have a right to expect consumers will use the product consistent with the instructions provided. (See Groll v. Shell
Oil Co. (1983) 148 Cal. App. 3d 444, 448 [196 Cal. Rptr. 52]; Oakes v. E. I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc. (1969) 272 Cal. App. 2d 645, 649 [77 Cal. Rptr. 709], hereafter cited as Oakes.) However the degree of misuse which will absolve a defendant is inextricably interwoven with the adequacy of the warning provided.
For example, Union's MSDS warned against dermal contact, advising such exposure might cause "skin irritation upon prolonged or repeated contact." The MSDS further suggested "the use of impermeable gloves is advised to prevent skin irritation in sensitive individuals." Where the only health hazard associated with dermal contact is skin irritation in sensitive individuals, we cannot say as a matter of law that failure to use protective gear is a "gross misuse" of a product. To the contrary, given the tepid admonitions contained in the MSDS, it is not unreasonable to suppose many users of the solvent would disregard the advisory to use protective clothing unless and until skin irritation actually developed. (Cf. Daly v. General Motors Corp. (1978) 20 Cal. 3d 725, 733 [144 Cal. Rptr. 380, 575 P.2d 1162] ["The manufacturer is not deemed responsible when injury results from an unforeseeable use of its product."] (Italics added.).) On the other hand, had defendants warned against irreversible damage to vital organs as a possible result of dermal exposure, it is reasonable to believe plaintiff and his employer might have taken the advisory more seriously. "Adequate warnings could have actuated a policy in handling [the product] which would have prevented the [injury]." (Shell Oil Co. v. Gutierrez (1978) 119 Ariz. 426 [581 P.2d 271, 280].)
Defendants rely on Oakes, supra, 272 Cal. App. 2d 645, for the proposition the failure to use a product in the manner prescribed operates to bar liability. In Oakes, plaintiff used defendant's weed-killing spray products containing ingredients later shown to be dangerous to some in
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|