Court Opinion

ID: 9633073
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 11:33:05.462074+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:04:01.003874
License: Public Domain

ALMA WILSON,
Justice, dissenting:
This manufacturers’ liability claim arises out of the performance of a construction contract for an addition to the First United Methodist Church in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Three construction workers were severely burned by a flash fire or explosion of vapors from the waterproofing primer. These injured workers claim that the waterproofing primer was unreasonably dangerous because the manufacturer failed to provide adequate instructions and warnings and thus, the distributor, Silicone Specialties, Inc., is liable for their injuries.
*68The following facts are not in dispute. Oakridge Builders, Inc. was the general contractor and Professional Waterproofing Company was a subcontractor. The construction contract required the use of Grace Bituthene Waterproofing System manufactured by W.R. Grace & Co.; required installation of the waterproofing system by an installer with no less than three years successful experience installing Grace Bituthene Waterproofing System and certified or accepted by Grace; required the contractor to obtain safety information from Grace; and, required the architect, Grace’s representative, waterproofing installer and installers of each component of work requiring coordination with waterproofing work to meet prior to installation of waterproofing for the purpose of reviewing material selections and procedures to be followed in performing the waterproofing work.
On December 4, 1986, the architect, the general contractor, the waterproofing subcontractor and a representative of the manufacturer and' distributor met at the job site for the purpose of reviewing the correct procedures for the application and installation of the Bituthene Waterproofing System. The manufacturer/distributor’s representative accepted the subcontractor as having experience in installation of Bituthene Waterproofing System. The group inspected the concrete basement area to be waterproofed. The group noted that the Prime P-3000 materials were at the job site. The architect expressed concern about using the Prime P-3000 as specified in the contract because of the cold weather. The manufacturer/distributor’s representative advised that the Prime P-3100, recommended for use in weather temperatures between 25 and 40 degrees fahrenheit, was not yet available.
The Prime P-3000 waterproofing system was installed. The weather remained cold, and turned rainy. By December 12, 1986, it was obvious that the Prime P-3000 waterproofing had failed due to the cold and wet weather. The construction timetable was squeezed by the failed waterproofing. The concrete basement walls were wet and water had gathered in the open trench along the concrete walls. To prevent further accumulation of .water, the general contractor constructed panels of Visquene plastic and covered the concrete walls and the trench, creating a tunnel-like formation open at both ends. Kerosene heaters were placed at each end of the plastic covering to dry out the concrete so the waterproofing could be completed.
There is no dispute that on December 15, 1986, the efforts to dry the concrete continued and simultaneously the waterproofing work was resumed, which resulted in the injurious flash fire and vapor explosion. There is no dispute that the injured workers did not carefully read the instructions on the containers of P-3100 primer. However, whether the distributor assured the safety of the waterproofing conditions and procedures used on December 15, 1986 in installing the Prime P-3100 water proofing system is a disputed material fact in this case.
Summary judgment should be granted only if it is perfectly clear that there is no material fact at issue. Northrip v. Montgomery Ward and Co., 529 P.2d 489 (Okla.1974). For summary judgment to be appropriate, the trial court must not only find there is no substantial controversy as to any material fact, but also that reasonable people could not reach differing conclusions from the undisputed facts. Even if the trial court anticipates that a directed verdict will be necessary, summary judgment must not deprive a litigant of the right to a jury trial of disputed facts. Flanders v. Crane Co., 693 P.2d 602, 605 (Okla.1984).
I cannot join in the majority’s finding that the distributor of Prime P-3100 was under no duty to foresee that the workers would not carefully read the instructions on the containers of primer nor that the primer would be used in a hazardous manner. In tort law, foreseeability tests the existence of a duty allegedly breached. In this case, the manufacturer/distributor voluntarily participated in the waterproofing stage of the construction project to assure safe and successful installation. Whether the manufacturer/distributor should have foreseen the flash fire and explosion in this case must be resolved even though the distributor assumed contractual safety duties. The disputed fact issue is whether the failure to warn or in*69struct the subcontractor about the flash point of the P-3100 primer rendered the product unreasonably dangerous in the context of the manufacturer/distributor’s active participation in the construction project and the under the conditions and procedures actually used for waterproofing installation of the First United Methodist Church addition on December 15, 1986.
Further, I do not agree with the majority that Duane v. Oklahoma Gas & Electric Company, 833 P.2d 284 (Okla.1992) stands for the proposition that as a matter of law “where a product is used in an industrial setting by one supposedly skilled at his job a manufacturer has ‘no duty to warn of dangers inherent in the task or which are created by oversight or negligence of the contractor or fellow employees.’ ” In affirming the trial court’s summary judgment, this Court found that the manufacturers, Shell and Chevron, had no reason to anticipate that a knowledgeable user, OG & E, would create a dangerous situation by pumping compressed air into the switch from which the oil had been drained, and then grind into that tank. Duane v. Oklahoma Gas & Electric Company, 833 P.2d at 287. The summary judgment record in this case establishes that Silicone Specialties, Inc. had a duty to review the manner of waterproofing installation and that it had knowledge of the failed installation due to cold and wet weather. This record could support a finding that Silicone Specialties, Inc. should have anticipated the hazardous situation and the unreasonable danger of Prime P-3100 when used in that situation and the resulting injury to the plaintiffs.
Duane stands for the proposition that a successful manufacturers’ liability claimant must prove that the manufacturer could have foreseen the particular use, the danger involved in the use and the user’s knowledge or lack of knowledge of the danger and that the manufacturer’s failure to warn of the foreseeable use was the proximate cause of the injury. Silicone Specialties, Inc.’s duty and foreseeability are disputed and remain unresolved fact issues. I agree with the Court of Appeals. Summary judgment is inappropriate in this case. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.