Opinion ID: 2202592
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Adequacy of Warnings

Text: It cannot be said as a matter of law that the warnings on the permanent product were adequate. It is true that the adequacy of warnings cannot be evaluated apart from the knowledge and expertise of those who may reasonably be expected to use the product, Martinez v. Dixie Carriers, Inc., 529 F.2d 457, 465 (5th Cir. 1976). In this case, a warning that may be sufficient for a product distributed only through licensed beauticians, as this one was, may well be inadequate for the same product distributed through drugstores to consumers. The sufficiency of a particular warning, in light of the sophistication of its intended users, is ordinarily a question for the jury, however, Burch v. Amsterdam, 366 A.2d 1079, 1086-87 (D.C.1976). [11] This court, in Burch, held that in cases in which there is a potential for serious injury, the adequacy of even a relatively clear warning should not be determined as a matter of law but is a question of fact for the jury, id. at 1086-87. The manufacturer's warning in this case that the ammonium thioglycolate contained in the product may cause burns is included within the step-by-step instruction manual, but not under the heading Application of Chemical Rearranger, or Rins[ing of] Chemical Rearranger from Hair; instead, it is found only at the very end of the manual, in small print, following the heading Customer Care at Home. It is a jury question as to whether or not this warning was adequate under the circumstances to warn the beautician of the danger of the ammonia component of the product. [12] One element of an adequate warning is a description of the precautions necessary to avoid the injury. Ferebee v. Chevron Chemical Co., 552 F.Supp. 1293, 1304 (D.D.C.1982). The warning for the ammonia agent in the product says only that the instruction booklet must be followed carefully in order to avoid burns; and yet the instruction manual sets forth no specific instructions on this score, other than that the beautician should drape the customer and surround the scalp area with conditioning lotion. In connection with the description of the second, neutralizing step of the process, the beautician is instructed, if the patron complains of burning, to rinse area well and shampoo, and to prevent the neutralizer from dripping onto exposed skin. The beautician is also told that the patron's safety is your responsibility. But no similar warning is given in connection with a part of the process much more dangerous, the rearranger step. In fact, although the warning at the end of the booklet states that the product contains ammonium thioglycolate, which can cause burns, at no point is the beautician informed that the rearranger contains the ammonium thioglycolate, not the neutralizer. The plethora of warnings surrounding the neutralizing step may well have misled the beautician into thinking that the burn-causing ammonia agent in the product is found in the neutralizer. The plaintiff here testified that she told the beautician, Thrower, that her back was burning, and that Thrower did not know what to do. Thrower contradicted this testimony, but it was not the function of the trial court to weigh the relative credibility of Payne and Thrower. In a similar case, where a plaintiff alleged that a manufacturer's inadequate warnings on a permanent wave product applied to plaintiff in a beauty parlor had caused her glaucoma, the court ruled: The nature of [the beautician's] treatment of plaintiff's pain, the relationship of that treatment to the alleged lack of directions by the defendant with respect to same, and the plaintiff's [behavior], are proper jury matters. Briggs v. Zotos International, Inc., 357 F.Supp. 89, 91 (E.D.Va.1973). In sum, we cannot agree that as a matter of law the directions for Delavell Thrower's use were adequate. This is a jury question, precluding a directed verdict for the defendant. The manufacturer argues, in addition, that Thrower was independently aware of the danger, and that therefore no warnings were necessary. [13] We need not decide whether a plaintiff may recover from a manufacturer when an intermediary of this nature testifies that he is fully aware of the danger, because we do not agree that the evidence showed that Thrower knew with particularity of the danger. Thrower testified that she had attended several seminars arranged by Soft Sheen to demonstrate its products, and that she could infer from the directions for use of the permanent wave given at those seminars that it could cause injury. She never stated that she was told of its latent danger directly. Further, she was not aware of the chemical makeup of the two components of the product, or of the different types of injury that each component may cause. Even if the evidence showed that Thrower was generally aware of the dangerous propensities of Care Free Curl, a jury could find that in order to prevent this product from being unreasonably dangerous, specific warnings on the directions to remind the beautician of the danger, detailing the possible results of misapplication and the remedial measures to be taken in that event, are necessary. There was sufficient evidence in this case upon which the jury could base a finding that the actual warnings on the product here were insufficient and/or misleading.