Opinion ID: 514846
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Duties Owed by a Bulk Supplier

Text: 18 The leading case in Kansas on the liability of a bulk supplier is Jones v. Hittle Service Inc., 219 Kan. 627, 549 P.2d 1383 (1976). In Jones, the Kansas Supreme Court held that the manufacturer and bulk seller of liquefied petroleum gas fulfills his duty to the ultimate consumer when he ascertains that the distributor to whom he sells is adequately trained, is familiar with the properties of the gas and safe methods of handling it, and is capable of passing on his knowledge to his customers. Id. 549 P.2d at 1394. 19 Essentially, the holding imposes upon the bulk seller the obligation to sell only to knowledgeable and responsible distributors. Jones does not impose a duty on the bulk seller to warn the ultimate consumer, and specifically does not impose a duty on the bulk seller to police the adequacy of warnings given by the distributor. If the product is sold in bulk, adequate warning to the vendee is all that can reasonably be required. Id. at 1393. 20 Texaco asserts that Jury Instruction No. 6, the court's stairstep guide, imposes a duty upon Texaco which exceeds the obligations settled under Kansas law. The third step in the instruction in part advises the jury as follows:Such third issue would cause you to decide whether any or all actions taken by Texaco were sufficient and adequate to reasonably inform and warn its immediate purchaser of such dangerous carcinogenic propensity of benzene, and safety precautions to avoid exposure, and to take reasonable measures to determine that such purchaser was capable of warning others in the chain of distribution to ultimate consumers. Should you find that Texaco fulfilled and discharged its legal duty to warn and take reasonable steps to see that its distributor knew and complied with its duty to inform, then you would return a verdict for defendant Texaco. 21 (Emphasis added.) Instruction No. 6 advises the jury that Texaco had a legal duty to police the actions of the distributor. The language knew and complied with exceeds the obligation to sell to a knowledgeable vendee who was capable of passing on the warnings. 22 Although Mason argues that at trial Texaco failed to object to the language knew and complied with, the record demonstrates that counsel for Texaco objected to Instruction No. 6, that he detailed his objections paragraph by paragraph, and that he specifically objected to the clause and take reasonable steps to see that its distributor knew and complied with its duty to inform. Texaco more than adequately preserved its objection to Instruction No. 6. 23 The trial court's Instruction No. 6 pertaining to the bulk seller's duty to warn was contrary to Kansas law as set forth not only in Jones, but also in Hendrix v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 203 Kan. 140, 453 P.2d 486, 496 (1969). See generally, Mays v. Ciba-Geigy Corp., 233 Kan. 38, 661 P.2d 348 (1983); Younger v. Dow Corning Corp., 202 Kan. 674, 451 P.2d 177 (1969). In our view the trial court erroneously instructed the jury as to the applicable law.