Title: Younger v. Dow Corning Corporation
Citation: 202 Kan. 674, 451 P.2d 177
Docket Number: 45,256
State: Kansas
Issuer: Kansas Supreme Court
Date: March 8, 1969

202 Kan. 674 (1969)
451 P.2d 177
VERN YOUNGER, Appellant,
v.
DOW CORNING CORPORATION and ENMAR, INC., Appellees.
No. 45,256

Supreme Court of Kansas.
Opinion filed March 8, 1969.
Payne H. Ratner, Jr., of Wichita, argued the cause, and Payne H. Ratner, Louise Mattox, Cliff W. Ratner, R.R. Barnes, Jim Lawing and Edmond L. Kinch, all of Wichita, were with him on the brief for the appellant.
H.E. Jones, of Wichita, argued the cause, and A.W. Hershberger, Richard Jones, Jerome E. Jones, Robert J. Roth, William R. Smith, Robert J. O'Connor and Greer Gsell, all of Wichita, were with him on the brief for the appellee, Dow Corning Corporation.
Richard C. Hite, of Wichita, argued the cause, and W.A. Kahrs, Robert H. Nelson, H.W. Fanning, Darrell D. Kellogg, Roger Sherwood and Richard L. Honeyman, all of Wichita, were with him on the brief for the appellee, Enmar, Inc.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
SCHROEDER, J.:
The issue presented by this appeal is whether the manufacturer of a product which is potentially hazardous to health and who gives adequate warning of such potential hazard, by label or otherwise, to its immediate vendee, an industrial user, may be liable in tort to an employee of the vendee for injuries allegedly sustained from such product upon the theory that the manufacturer was negligent in failing to give additional and specific warnings of the product's potential health hazard to the employee.
The plaintiff in his amended petition alleged that he was employed by the Beech Aircraft Corporation in its jig shop as a jig builder. In the course of his employment he was ordered to spray a compound known as "Dow Corning R-671 Resin" onto jig parts for the purpose of preventing adhesion of organic materials to jig *675 patterns. In a similar manner the plaintiff used a chemical compound known as "Toluol." The plaintiff claimed that such chemical compounds contained irritants which were dangerous and deleterious to the health of the users thereof, all of which was known to the defendants but unknown to the plaintiff.
The case was submitted to the trial court on the defendants' motion for summary judgment upon the basis of stipulations and admissions of fact contained in the amended pretrial order as follows:
The trial court ruled that the Federal Labeling of Hazardous Substances Act (15 U.S.C.A. § 1261) and Regulations promulgated to supplement and implement said act (21 C.F.R. 191.7, et seq.) were not applicable to this action, and this point is not before us on appeal.
Insofar as material herein the plaintiff's contention set forth in the amended pretrial order is:
and the defendants' contention, insofar as material herein, set forth in the amended pretrial order is:
The trial court, after having listened to arguments of counsel, considered the stipulations and admissions of fact and the authorities cited by the parties, sustained the defendants' motion for summary judgment "for the reason that the defendants, having given adequate warning to their immediate vendees of the potential health hazards presented by their products, had no duty to further warn the plaintiff."
The issue presented on appeal, as heretofore stated, is an extremely narrow one.
We have been cited to no Kansas decisions, nor has our research disclosed any, involving the issue herein upon facts substantially identical.
A case from which some parallel might be drawn is Bergstresser v. Van Hoy, 142 Kan. 88, 45 P.2d 855. There the defendant sold a used automobile to a third party. The automobile had defective brakes. The plaintiff, a pedestrian, was injured by the operation of the vehicle because of the defective brakes, and the court held the used car dealer who sold the automobile had a duty to inform the buyer of the defective condition of the automobile, and that the discharge of that duty relieved the seller of liability to the buyer, and to persons who may be injured through the operation of the automobile by the buyer.
The appellant relies on Steele v. Rapp, 183 Kan. 371, 327 P.2d 1053. There the defendant allegedly sold a volatile fingernail polish remover to the plaintiff's employer. The plaintiff alleged she was *677 injured when a co-employee dropped a glass container of the polish remover and it ignited and exploded. The lower court sustained a demurrer to the plaintiff's pleadings on the ground that the dropping of the fingernail polish remover by the plaintiff's co-employee constituted an act of negligence which was an intervening and efficient cause of the plaintiff's alleged injuries. This court reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings, holding that:
The only reference to a duty to warn in the Steele case is almost collateral. The plaintiff's second amended petition charged the defendant with negligence in "`Distributing and selling a product which was imminently and inherently dangerous, without giving notice by an appropriate label or otherwise of its dangerous quality.'" (p. 373.)
In discussing this point in the opinion the court said the demurrer concedes that the defendant did not sell the fingernail polish remover in a safe container or give notice or warning by an appropriate label or otherwise of an imminently or inherently dangerous quality of such product. In Steele the court was dealing with a product that was inflammable and explosive, and the remarks of the court implied that it was the duty of the supplier to disclose by label or otherwise the dangers inherent in the product.
In the instant case the manufacturers did give adequate warning by label or otherwise of the potential health hazards of their product to Beech Aircraft Corporation, the industrial user.
In Branstetter v. Robbins, 178 Kan. 8, 283 P.2d 455, this court distinguished between cases involving explosive products and those involving products giving rise to lesser hazards.
The general rule in regard to a supplier's duty to warn of known dangers in the ordinary use of his products is found in Restatement, Torts (2d Ed. 1965), § 388, as follows:
Under the Comment on Clause (c) a distinction is made regarding warnings given to third persons. It reads in part:
..............
Cases from other jurisdictions directly in point shed some light on the situation.
In Bertone v. Turco Products, 252 F.2d 726 (3rd Cir.1958), the plaintiff was an immigrant who had just recently come to this country, and was able to speak, understand or read very little English. He was employed by Flying Tiger Line, Inc. to clean aircraft engine parts. In the course of his employment he was given a solution called "Paint-Gon" to be used in dissolving foreign substances deposited on aircraft engine parts. "Paint-Gon" had dangerous properties and should not have been permitted to touch the person, nor should its fumes be inhaled very long. The containers in which "Paint-Gon" was made available apparently bore a warning of the danger, as did the containers in the instant case. Recommended procedure in using the product indicated that it be applied in a well-ventilated space with tools permitting the use of the substance without making direct contact with the person. The extent of the instructions Bertone received from his employer, the extent of his comprehension of whatever instructions were given, and the type of tools and working space he was assigned did not appear from the pleadings. It would appear he was injured by exposure to "Paint-Gon."
There the plaintiff filed an action against Turco Products, Inc., the manufacturer of "Paint-Gon," on the theory of negligence in failing to warn purchasers and prospective users of the dangerous characteristics of the product and the precautions required for its use. Turco answered and brought in Flying Tiger on a third party complaint, asserting a right to indemnity on the ground that Flying Tiger had not adequately instructed the plaintiff of the dangers in using "Paint-Gon" even though Flying Tiger had been apprised thereof, and consequently plaintiff's injury was a result, not of Turco's negligence but of Flying Tiger's negligence. On appeal from an order sustaining Flying Tiger's motion for summary judgment it was said:
In Weekes v. Michigan Chrome &amp; Chemical Company, 352 F.2d 603 (6th Cir.1965), the plaintiff contracted a serious skin condition known as "chlor-acne" as a result of working with "Miccrowax C-600" sold by the defendant. A jury awarded the plaintiff $24,000 damages in an action charging that the defendant had negligently failed to provide adequate warning of the dangers involved in using this product and to advise the plaintiff of the proper precautions to avoid them. On appeal the defendant charged the district judge erred in denying his motion for a directed verdict.
The case deals primarily with whether the defendant gave any warning of the hazards of its product, and whether such notice as was given was adequate. The defendant asserted "that it was not required to see to it that each person who might be expected to use the wax was individually and by defendant adequately warned of its dangerous propensities." (p. 607.) In response to this contention the appellate court said:
A similar situation was presented in Foster v. Ford Motor Company, 139 Wash. 341, 246 Pac. 945, 48 A.L.R. 934. There the plaintiff, while driving a Ford tractor for his employer, Irwin, was injured when the tractor tipped over backward. An action was brought against Irwin and the Ford Motor Company, manufacturer of the tractor. The basis of the complaint against the Ford Motor Company was that it manufactured a tractor that was imminently dangerous to the life and limb of the operator, because the tractor was negligently constructed and designed in that approximately *681 one-third of the weight of the tractor was at the front and two-thirds at its rear; that the application of power when the tractor would become mired in mud was sufficient to up-end it. The facts showed that at the time Irwin purchased the tractor he was notified by the dealer that in driving it, a foot should always be kept on the clutch. The plaintiff contended the manufacturer of an article, which, through its faulty construction is imminently dangerous to human life, is responsible to any third person using it unless notice is given to the person injured. The appellate court noted that while there are cases to this effect they "do not establish the rule to be applied to the facts in this case." (p. 347.) In ruling upon this point the court said:
Other cases that shed light upon the issue are Sagler v. Kellogg S.S. Corporation, 155 Misc. 217, 277 N.Y.S. 792 (1934); Nishida v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours &amp; Company, 245 F.2d 768 (5th Cir.1957); Hopkins v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours &amp; Co., 199 F.2d 930 (3rd Cir.1952), second appearance 212 F.2d 623; see, also, 76 A.L.R.2d 2, 25; and see, Love v. Wolf, 226 C.A.2d 378, 38 Cal. Rptr. 183 (1964); and Stottlemire v. Cawood, 213 F. Supp. 897 (D.D.C. 1963), where a manufacturer of dangerous medicines supplies a prescribing physician.
*682 The appellant herein contends the issue of primary negligence, proximate cause, and intervening cause, as applied to this case, should be submitted to a jury under proper instructions. (Citing, Rowell v. City of Wichita, 162 Kan. 294, 176 P.2d 590.) The appellant directs our attention to Hubbard-Hall Chemical Company v. Silverman, 340 F.2d 402 (1st Cir.1965). There the defendant chemical company sold bags of a preparation known as "Parathion dust" to a co-defendant who was the decedents' employer. The bag contained a label which could be construed to have adequately warned the employer of the hazards involved in using the dust. The decedents, however, were illiterate Puerto Rico laborers who failed to use adequate precautions in using the insecticide and died as a result of poisoning after the first day's work with the product. The employer contended in his defense that he personally instructed the decedents in the use of the dust. In an action brought against the manufacturer of the insecticide and the employer for the death of the two farm laborers, the court held:
Without question the product in Hubbard-Hall falls in the category of a highly dangerous poison, which commands a greater duty of care on the part of the supplier than the facts herein warrant.
We hold the rule announced in Bertone and Weekes is applicable to the facts herein  the manufacturer of a product which is potentially hazardous to health and who gives adequate warning of such potential hazard, by label or otherwise, to its immediate vendee, an industrial user, has no additional duty to warn the vendee's employee of such hazards, and is not liable in a negligence action to such employee for failure to do so.
The court is not here confronted with a highly dangerous explosive or poisonous product. The manufacturers of the products used herein had every right to anticipate that Beech Aircraft Corporation, an industrial user to whom these products had been supplied, would pass on the warnings of the manufacturer that these products were *683 potentially hazardous to the health of its employees who were assigned the task of using them in their work, and that proper precautionary measures would be taken by Beech Aircraft Corporation to make the use of these products safe for its employees, all in accordance with the particular duty of Beech Aircraft Corporation to do so.
The judgment of the lower court is affirmed.