Opinion ID: 2032017
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Graphic Color

Text: We also affirm that portion of the judgment of the appellate court that affirmed the circuit court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Graphic Color, although for reasons different from those relied upon by the courts below. It is within this court's power and discretion to affirm the decision below on any ground warranted, regardless of whether that ground was relied on by the lower courts or whether the reasons given by those courts were correct. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. v. O'Malley (1994), 163 Ill.2d 130, 140, 205 Ill.Dec. 534, 643 N.E.2d 825; Messenger v. Edgar (1993), 157 Ill.2d 162, 177, 191 Ill.Dec. 65, 623 N.E.2d 310. We decline to resolve the issue of Graphic Color's liability on the basis of Federal preemption because the plaintiff's claims against this defendant appear to stem not from the label affixed to the Misty Paint Stripper but from a general failure to warn of the product's dangers and the failure to properly instruct as to its proper use. Thus, unlike the claims against AMREP, the allegations against Graphic Color do not on their face seek to impose cautionary labeling requirements with respect to the Misty Paint Stripper different from those imposed by the FHSA. The precise allegations against Graphic Color, contained in count I of the plaintiff's amended complaint, are that it: a. Failed to warn R. Busch Drum, Inc. that the inhalation of `Misty Paint Stripper and Decal Remover' would cause the death of individuals using said product; b. Failed to properly instruct R. Busch Drum, Inc. in the use of the `Misty Paint Stripper and Decal Remover.' In addition to arguing that these claims are preempted by the FHSA, Graphic Color argues that it owed no legal duty to warn Melissa of the dangers arising from use of the paint stripper or to instruct her as to its proper use because she was not a foreseeable user of the product. In support of this contention, Graphic Color cites to section 388 of the Restatement of Torts, which addresses the liability of persons supplying chattels for the use of others. In Huckabee v. Bell & Howell, Inc. (1970), 47 Ill.2d 153, 265 N.E.2d 134, this court, although not explicitly adopting section 388's provisions, cited to those provisions with approval. We find that this case is an appropriate one for application of section 388. For the reasons which follow, we hold that section 388 of the Restatement bars the plaintiff's action against Graphic Color. Section 388 states: § 388. Chattel Known to be Dangerous for Intended Use One who supplies directly or through a third person a chattel for another to use is subject to liability to those whom the supplier should expect to use the chattel with the consent of the other or to be endangered by its probable use, for physical harm caused by the use of the chattel in the manner for which and by a person for whose use it is supplied, if the supplier (a) knows or has reason to know that the chattel is or is likely to be dangerous for the use for which it is supplied, and (b) has no reason to believe that those for whose use the chattel is supplied will realize its dangerous condition, and (c) fails to exercise reasonable care to inform them of its dangerous condition or of the facts which make it likely to be dangerous. (Emphasis added.) Restatement (Second) of Torts § 388 (1965). The chattel at issue here is the Misty Paint Stripper which Graphic Color supplied to Busch Drum for use in cleaning its ink vats. Prior to Melissa's death, Richard was the only Busch Drum employee who had ever cleaned Graphic Color's vats. Melissa was never authorized by Richard or Carol Busch to perform that task. In an affidavit, Richard admitted that Melissa was never an employee, agent or independent contractor of or for R. Busch Drum, Inc.    [and] was never paid any sums of money, whether by cash or negotiable instrument at any time whatsoever. He further admitted that he at no time ever requested that    Melissa go to the premises of R. Busch Drum, Inc. for any reason on March 20, 1989 and    was totally unaware of her presence at the premises of R. Busch Drum, Inc. until such time as [he] arrived [there]    at approximately 12:20 p.m.   . Furthermore, in his answers to AMREP's interrogatories, Richard stated that he provided no warnings, instructions or training to Melissa regarding how to clean the ink vats or properly use the Misty Paint Stripper. Similarly, Carol Busch acknowledged in an affidavit that she and Richard were the only employees of Busch Drum, that Melissa was never employed or retained in any capacity by the company, and that she never requested or authorized Melissa to clean Graphic Color's vats. The record shows that Graphic Color supplied Busch Drum, not Melissa, with the Misty Paint Stripper, and the Graphic Color representative instructed only Richard how to clean the ink vats using the paint stripper. Applying the provisions of section 388 to the foregoing facts, we hold that Graphic Color cannot be subject to liability for Melissa's death. Under section 388, Graphic Color is only liable for injuries to those whom it should expect to use the paint stripper supplied to Busch Drum with the consent of Busch Drum or to those whom Graphic Color should expect    to be endangered by its probable use when used in the manner for which and by a person for whose use it is supplied. (Restatement (Second) of Torts § 388 (1965).) Clearly, Melissa falls into neither of these categories. Comment a to section 388 explains that: The words `those whom the supplier should expect to use the chattel' and the words `a person for whose use it is supplied' include not only the person to whom the chattel is turned over by the supplier, but also all those who are members of a class whom the supplier should expect to use it or occupy it or share in its use with the consent of such person       In the cases thus far decided, the rule stated in this Section has been applied only in favor of those who are injured while the chattel is being used by the person to whom it is supplied, or with his consent. (Emphasis added.) Restatement (Second) of Torts § 388, Comment a, at 301 (1965). Further discussing the scope of liability under section 388, comment e explains that, [e]xcept possibly where there is a privilege to use the chattel, the one who supplies a chattel for another's use is not subject to liability for bodily harm caused by its use by a third person without the consent of him for whose use it is supplied. (Emphasis added.) Restatement (Second) of Torts § 388, Comment e, at 303 (1965). As Graphic Color points out, under the applicable provisions of section 388, the plaintiff must prove two things before Graphic Color can be subject to liability for Melissa's death. First, he must show that Melissa used the paint stripper supplied by Graphic Color with the consent of someone at Busch Drum. Second, he must show that Graphic Color should have expected that Melissa would use the product. By virtue of the numerous admissions in the record indicating that Melissa was never authorized by anyone at Busch Drum to clean the ink vats or to use the paint stripper, Graphic Color cannot be subject to liability for her death. Apart from being Richard's wife, Melissa had no connection whatsoever with Busch Drum. At the time of her death, unbeknownst to Richard or Carol Busch, Melissa took it upon herself to enter Busch Drum's premises and undertake the task of cleaning Graphic Color's ink vats using the Misty Paint Stripper. Melissa had never cleaned the vats in the past, nor was she ever taught how to properly do so. Under these circumstances, Melissa clearly was not a member of a class who Graphic Color should have expected would use the paint stripper. Accordingly, Graphic Color is not liable for her death. See Restatement (Second) of Torts § 388, Comment a, at 301 (1965). Finally, we reject the plaintiff's assertion that Graphic Color is subject to liability for Melissa's death because she was privileged to use the paint stripper despite the lack of consent from Richard or Carol Busch. (See Restatement (Second) of Torts § 388, Comment e, at 303 (1965).) The plaintiff bases this privilege on the fact that Melissa was his wife and it is commonly understood that in a small, family-owned company, such as Busch Drum, family members will often help out around the company. Under such circumstances, the plaintiff argues, Melissa falls within the class of persons who Graphic Color should have expected would use the paint stripper. The plaintiff has cited no authority to support this contention. In any event, this court cannot permit the unfairness that would result from such a holding particularly where Richard and Carol Busch both repeatedly admitted that Melissa was not authorized to clean the ink vats or to use the paint stripper which Graphic Color supplied to Busch Drum. For these reasons, summary judgment was properly entered in favor of Graphic Color.