Court Opinion

ID: 9758643
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 23:39:01.252387+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:53.547534
License: Public Domain

CORNELIUS, Chief Justice,
dissenting.
I conclude that because the undisputed evidence shows that Humble Sand furnished the silica sand only to sophisticated users, as a matter of law, Humble Sand had no duty to warn Gomez of the dangers in using the silica sand.
As conceded by Gomez’s experts, the connection between breathing silica dust and silicosis has been well known in the abrasives industry and fully documented since the 1920’s. As a result of various studies, safety codes were in place as early as 1938 recommending the use of respirators for workers in abrasive blasting environments. By the 1960’s, federal regulations required government contractors to use such safety equipment, and in the 1970’s the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) began requiring the use of air-supplied hoods for all employees engaged in abrasive blasting. OSHA also required all employers to develop operating procedures for the use of the protective hoods, to provide proper equipment for their employees, to instruct employees in their use, and to ensure that the respirators were properly maintained and used.
Gomez testified that he saw a warning on the bag of-sand the first time he used it, and he understood that breathing silica dust would harm him. He also admitted that the plant manager told him it was dangerous and that he should avoid breathing it. Gomez also testified that because of the warning, he asked his foreman about the type of equipment involved, and the foreman told him he would be all right as long as he wore proper protection. Gomez testified that he consistently wore an air-supplied hood and dust mask while using the product.
A manufacturer or supplier of a product has a duty to inform users about hazards associated with the use of its product. Alm v. Aluminum Co. of Am., 717 S.W.2d 588, 591 (Tex.1986); Restatement (Seoond) of Torts § 388 (1965). There is no duty to warn, however, where the risks associated with the product are within the ordinary knowledge common to the community. Caterpillar, Inc. v. Shears, 911 S.W.2d 379, 382 (Tex.1995). Thus, the duty to warn is limited in scope and applies only to hazards of which the community is unaware. Id.
Whether there is a duty to warn is a question of law. Munoz v. Gulf Oil Co., 732 S.W.2d 62, 65 (Tex.App. — Houston [14th Dist.] 1987, writ ref'd n.r.e.). Where there is a duty to warn and the manufacturer or supplier fails to give an adequate warning, there is a marketing defect that renders the product unreasonably dangerous. Caterpillar, Inc. v. Shears, 911 S.W.2d at 382.
There are three situations where the manufacturer or supplier has no duty to warn the ultimate users or consumers of the product. Restatement (Seoond) of ToRts § 388, cmt. n. The first is where the manufacturer or supplier sells or supplies *509the product to a learned intermediary who well knows the risks associated with the product, has been warned of those risks, is trained in procedures designed to avoid those risks, and can reasonably be relied on to take the appropriate precautions. See Alm v. Aluminum Co. of Am., 717 S.W.2d at 591; Wyeth-Ayerst Labs. Co. v. Medrano, 28 S.W.3d 87 (Tex.App. — Texarkana 2000, no pet.). The second is where the manufacturer or supplier sells only in bulk and deals only with commercial buyers whose knowledge of the risks associated with the product is equal to that of the manufacturer or seller. An additional consideration in bulk sales or delivery cases is that the initial supplier has little or no effective way to package its product so an adequate warning can be communicated directly to the ultimate users or consumers. Alm v. Aluminum Co. of Am., 717 S.W.2d at 592; Munoz v. Gulf Oil Co., 732 S.W.2d at 65; Khan v. Velsicol Chem. Co., 711 S.W.2d 310, 313-14 (Tex.App. — Dallas 1986, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Jones v. Hittle Serv., Inc., 219 Kan. 627, 549 P.2d 1383, 1394 (1976).
The third situation is where the manufacturer or supplier furnishes its product to a sophisticated intermediary or user who is experienced in the use of the product, and who is thoroughly aware of the risks associated with its use and the protective measures required to avoid those risks. The rationale behind the rule in this situation is that the manufacturer may reasonably rely on the sophisticated user to warn its employees of the risks in using the product and to take the precautionary measures required by knowledge and the law. Curtis v. M & S Petroleum, Inc., 174 F.3d 661, 674-75 (5th Cir.1999); Washington v. Dep’t of Transp., 8 F.3d 296, 300 (5th Cir.1993); Davis v. Avondale Indus., Inc., 975 F.2d 169, 173 (5th Cir.1992); Smith v. Walter C. Best, Inc., 927 F.2d 736, 741 (3d Cir.1990); Beale v. Hardy, 769 F.2d 213 (4th Cir.1985); Adams v. Union Carbide Corp., 737 F.2d 1453, 1457 (6th Cir.1984); Amos v. BASF Corp., No. 93-0222-D, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20604 (W.D.Va. July 11, 1996); Goodbar v. Whitehead Bros., 591 F.Supp. 552, 566 (W.D.Va.1984), aff'd sub nom. Beale v. Whitehead Bros., 769 F.2d 213 (4th Cir.1985); Younger v. Dow Corning Corp., 202 Kan. 674, 451 P.2d 177 (1969); Bean v. Asbestos Corp., Nos. 95-52, 71,234, 366-426, 1998 WL 972122 (Va. Cir. Ct. Feb. 26, 1998).
Because Humble Sand furnished the product Gomez used only to sophisticated users, as a matter of law, it had no duty to warn Gomez of the product’s dangers. The uncontroverted evidence shows that Spincote was a sophisticated user of abrasive blasting products containing silica and shared the industry’s long-held knowledge of the risks associated with the use of the product. It is also undisputed that Spin-cote had been directly warned about the dangers to its employees from using the silica sand, and had been required by OSHA regulations to warn its employees and furnish them the necessary protective equipment. Moreover, Spincote admitted that it was aware of the dangers in using silica sand, and was aware of the federal regulations requiring that it provide the mandatory safety information and protective equipment so its employees could handle the product safely.
Gomez argues that because Spincote failed in some respects to scrupulously comply with OSHA’s safety regulations, Humble Sand could not reasonably rely on Spincote to adequately warn and protect its employees. I disagree. The existence of specific safety regulations applicable to the sophisticated user presents an especially strong case for reliance on that user by the manufacturer. The manufacturer is not required to presume that the sophisti*510cated user -will violate the OSHA regulations. Huber v. Niagara Mach. & Tool Works, 430 N.W.2d 465, 468 (Minn.1988).
The evidence here shows that Spincote was part' of a larger company which at the relevant times employed over 1,400 employees nationwide and focused on oilfield-related operations. Spincote’s Odessa plant manager, Shorty Workman, testified that he had known since the 1950’s that silica dust could “tear up your lungs,” and that even in the 1950’s when he had worked as a sandblaster, he had used an air-supplied hood for protection. He testified that he knew from the beginning of his work with sandblasting that a person could die from breathing the dust and that while he was plant manager he had fired some employees who did not use their safety equipment in the blasthouse. He also testified that each new employee was informed about the dangers of the work and the requirement that they use the safety equipment provided. Spincote’s vice president, Ken Gray, testified that Spincote was aware of silica dust hazards and knew of its obligation to inform its employees about them, as did Kenneth Baker, the manager of Spincote’s Corpus Christi plant. They also testified about the safety meetings held at the plant to inform their workers about the safety requirements of their jobs.
Gray, who had been hired by Spincote from a different profession, also testified that he became aware of the health risks involved with exposure to respirable free silica in 1982 and did not become aware that there was free silica in blasting sand until the mid 1980’s, and that he was not familiar with silicosis until that time. He also testified that he made efforts to improve the workplace and that the company eventually limited high' silica-containing abrasives and switched to garnet abrasives.
Former Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA, Dr. Eula Bingham, testified by deposition that she had been the head of OSHA during the late 1970’s and until 1981. She testified that silicosis has been well known as an occupational disease since the 1930’s and that federal laws or standards required or recommended the use of air-supplied respiratory equipment in silica sandblasting operations since at least 1938. She also testified that respiratory protection rules through OSHA went into effect in the early 1970’s and that employers had the federally-mandated duty since the 1950’s to have respiratory protection programs and written safety procedures in place.
These facts show without question that Spincote was a major manufacturing operation and that sandblasting was an integral part of its operations. The evidence shows that companies in that business had been informally aware of such dangers for decades, that warnings and directives had been set out by the federal government since the 1930’s, and that formal detailed regulations had been promulgated and enforced by OSHA since the 1970’s.
Gomez contends that because one of Spincote’s officers testified he knew silica sand was dangerous but did not know that it could be fatal, a fact issue was raised on whether Spincote was sufficiently aware of the dangers of silica sand to be classified as a sophisticated user. Despite the allegedly limited knowledge of this witness, however, the evidence is conclusive that Spincote was aware of the dangers silica-based products presented to its employees from the knowledge that was common to the industry since the 1930’s and that was explicitly set out in the OSHA regulations. In these circumstances, the limited knowledge of one of Spincote’s officers could not defeat Spincote’s classification as a sophis*511ticated user. See Adams v. Union Carbide Corp., 737 F.2d at 1457.
Gomez also argues that Humble Sand did not show that it adequately inquired into Spincote’s knowledge and its reliability to adequately warn its employees of the dangers of silica sand. This same contention was raised in Goodbar v. Whitehead Bros., 591 F.Supp. at 561. The Goodbanr court held that even without formal inquiry, the supplier could reasonably assume that the sophisticated user had substantial expertise in the use of the product and that it would perform its legal obligations as well as protect its financial interests by properly warning and equipping its employees.
For all the reasons stated, I would reverse the judgment and render judgment that Gomez take nothing.