Opinion ID: 3010856
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Mrs. Pavlik's Warnings

Text: There is evidence in the record indicating that Stephen Pavlik's mother, who passed away approximately one year after Stephen's death, knew that her son had inhaled butane on at least two prior occasions, once in 1992 and again in 1994. The coroner's certificate of identification, for example, states that Mrs. Pavlik had caught Stephen inhaling butane about two years before his death, though she believed that he had since stopped. App. at 290. Stephen's sister, Theresa, also testified that Mrs. Pavlik had caught Stephen doing something that's not right with two cans of butane sometime in 1992, and that Mrs. Pavlik had 13 told Stephen that if he continued, he would be thrown out of the house. App. at 302-04. In addition, Denise Johnson, a friend of Stephen's, testified that Mrs. Pavlik had informed her that she had caught Stephen inhaling butane: A: . . . after Stephen's death, she had told me that he had used it previously. Q: Who's the she? A: Mrs. Pavlik. . . . Q: Was the topic of the use of the butane discussed [between you and Mrs. Pavlik] a lot? A: No, not a lot, no. A couple times, but not a lot. . . . Q: Did Mrs. Pavlik indicate exactly what she said to, like her son when she caught him? A: I believe she did, but I can't remember exact words. You know, it was a really long time ago. Q: Do you remember any words to the effect that, The stuff 's dangerous? A: Of course, yes. Supplemental Appendix at 75b-77b.4 It is this statement upon which the defendants rely to show that Mrs. Pavlik had warned Stephen of the dangers of butane inhalation. This evidence, however, is not uncontroverted. Theresa Pavlik consistently testified that Mrs. Pavlik did not know specifically what Stephen was doing with the cans of butane when the alleged 1992 incident occurred: Q: Did your mother ever ask you what is your brother doing with these cans? A: Not that I remember. Q: Did your mother ever indicate that she found out what your brother was doing with these cans? A: Specifically, no. Q: Did your mother say, I think he was inhaling or _________________________________________________________________ 4. It is unclear from the briefs and the deposition transcripts in the record to which of the two (or possibly other) occasions noted above Denise Johnson's testimony refers. 14 ingesting this material? A: No sir, not that I remember. Q: Wasn't there any conversation between you and your mother as to what your brother was doing with this material? A: Yes sir, there was. She was not sure exactly what it was that he was doing with them. She just had a feeling that it just was not right, whatever it was he was doing with it. Q: And did you indicate or did you suggest anything as to what he may be doing with this material? A: Not that I remember. App. at 304-05. As for the second incident, in 1994, Theresa Pavlik testified that neither she nor her mother specifically confronted Stephen about butane inhalation at that time: Q: When you spoke to your mother in January of`94, did she indicate that this was only the second time she ever heard this laughing, the first time being about -- A: Yes, sir. Q: -- a year and a couple months earlier? A: Yes, sir. . . . Q: Did she indicate that she spoke to her son again? A: No, sir, not that I remember. App. 307-08. It is tempting to superimpose upon the record our own street-wise assumption that everyone knows the dangers (and warning signs) of butane abuse. But, as judges, we cannot do so. Since we must decide whether Stephen Pavlik was fully aware of the danger of bodily harm posed by butane inhalation, and since there may be degrees of apprehension of danger with respect to the seriousness of harm, viewing this evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, we cannot agree with defendants that it is beyond dispute that Mrs. Pavlik's warning was sufficient to break the causal chain. The jury may well find for defendants, but it is a question for the jury. 15 First of all, while it appears that Mrs. Pavlik gave some warning to Stephen, it is uncertain what the content of that warning was. Next, since the content of Mrs. Pavlik's warning is unclear, we cannot conclusively determine whether it was adequate to put Stephen on notice of the full extent of the risk of bodily injury, see Petree, supra, posed by butane inhalation. Indeed, there is also a genuine issue of material fact whether Mrs. Pavlik even knew what Stephen was doing with the butane cans -- and hence whether she was even capable of providing Stephen with sufficient knowledge of the danger at issue. Theresa Pavlik's testimony that Mrs. Pavlik had said the stuff's dangerous, is an insufficient basis for us to decide as a matter of law that Stephen was sufficiently warned of the danger at issue prior to his fatal inhalation, and therefore that the heeding presumption has been rebutted. This statement provides no more information than the warning on the Zeus can that a user should not breathe spray. Indeed, it may actually provide less information, since Mrs. Pavlik's admonition does not relate what exactly about the butane is dangerous and/or what uses of the product would be dangerous. Below we consider whether a different result is commanded when we consider this evidence in conjunction with the warnings on the Clipper and Zeus cans.