Advance Chemical Co. v. Harter
| Decision Date | 08 November 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. BA-424,BA-424 |
| Citation | 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2503,478 So.2d 444 |
| Parties | 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2503, Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 10,767 ADVANCE CHEMICAL COMPANY, Appellant, v. Annie L. HARTER, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Robert P. Gaines of Beggs & Lane, Pensacola, for appellant.
Charles J. Kahn, Jr., of Levin, Warfield, Middlebrooks, Mabie, Thomas, Mayes & Mitchell, P.A., Pensacola, for appellee.
Advance Chemical Company (Advance) appeals an adverse judgment in this products liability case in which Annie L. Harter (Mrs. Harter) recovered $200,000 damages based on her claims that Advance failed to warn of the dangerous potentialities of its product, Advance 480, causing her irreversible lung damage. Advance here maintains that the trial court should have directed a verdict. Alternatively, Advance contends that a new trial should have been granted because the jury's verdict for Mrs. Harter is against the manifest weight of the evidence. At issue here is the extent of the duty to warn of a product's dangerous propensities, and whether the duty remains in effect as to persons who may be said to suffer from an allergy, or some condition which may cause hypersensitivity with respect to a particular type of product. We affirm.
Mrs. Harter filed suit against Advance based upon theories of implied warranty, negligence in manufacture, strict liability, and negligent failure to warn users of inherently dangerous potentialities of its product. The trial court charged the jury only on two theories: breach of implied warranty, and negligent failure to warn. The jury found that Advance negligently failed to warn users of the dangerous potentialities of its product, Advance 480, but found no breach of implied warranty.
Because the legal issues on this appeal must be viewed against a factual background, we find it necessary to briefly summarize the evidence presented to the jury. Viewed in a light most favorable to Mrs. Harter, as required on appeal, the evidence shows the following: Mrs. Harter was employed by the Santa Rosa County School Board as a custodian. On April 21, 1980, she mixed Advance 480, a cleaning product, with water, according to the directions for mixing on the label and covered the floor of the office she was cleaning. She immediately had difficulty breathing and began wheezing, having bad chest pains and a headache. She reported her reaction to her supervisor. She had trouble sleeping that night because of headaches and chest pain and arranged to see Dr. Maddux the following day. After some laboratory work, Dr. Maddux had Mrs. Harter admitted to the Santa Rosa Hospital.
Advance 480 contains ammonia. The label on the container reads as follows:
Effective blend of surfactants, emulsifiers, and detergents, to rapidly and safely strip oxidized waxes from asphalt, vinyl, rubber, and linoleum tile, and terrazo or cement floors, when used as directed.
Contains no caustics or solvents to dull or soften tile or synthetic floor finishes. Concentrated product; efficient at high dilutions for economy. Rinse completely. Non-flammable.
For normal wax removal, use at 3 oz. per gallon of water. The stripping action is improved by using warm water. For heavy wax buildup, may require use at 1 part to 9 or 15 parts water. Cover floor thoroughly, allow to stand 5 to 15 minutes, then remove solution containing wax with sponge pad or damp mop. Repeat if required. Test the stripping action on some types of floors before selecting final dilution. For cleaning only, use at 1 part to 30 parts cold or warm water.
Keep out of reach of children. Harmful if swallowed. Induce ejection and call physician. Avoid excessive contact with skin.
Noticeably absent from the label is a warning concerning inhalation of fumes.
Prior to her exposure to Advance 480, Mrs. Harter had suffered several bouts of bronchitis but she testified that she did not have the same problems prior to her exposure as she did afterwards. Dr. Maddux concurred, testifying that Mrs. Harter's symptoms were milder before her exposure to Advance 480.
After her exposure to the cleaning product, Mrs. Harter continued to suffer wheezing, chest pain, headaches, and shortness of breath up until the trial of this cause. She was hospitalized several times throughout 1980 and 1981 to alleviate her symptoms. During one such hospitalization, Dr. Maddux became concerned about Mrs. Harter's condition and had her transferred to another hospital to be seen by a lung specialist, Dr. Williams.
Dr. Williams testified that Mrs. Harter suffered from bronchospasms. He felt that her symptoms were consistent with exposure to an ammonia product, which can cause bronchospasms. In explanation, he testified that significant quantities of ammonia gas, inhaled, can cause bronchospasm resulting in permanent, irreversible damage to the lungs. Further, in low concentrations it can cause reversible lung problems, but reversible over a period of many months. Although permanent damage to the lungs is usually the result of heavy exposure, it may be caused by lower levels of exposure depending on the individual.
Dr. Williams diagnosed Mrs. Harter as having reactive airways disease. When presented with the formula of Advance 480 and asked whether there was enough ammonia in the product to have had a permanent toxic effect on Mrs. Harter, Dr. Williams responded:
A. The problem with saying yea or nay to this is one has to know how much of this solution was poured in how much water, in how much of a space, in other words, to evaluate parts per million. Ammonia gas has a very pungent odor in very, very small quantities. People who have reactive airways disease, for whatever reason, react very strongly to pungent odors of all kinds; ammonia just being one, chlorine in Chlorox being another, perfumes, any one of those things. Regardless of the minimal concentration of this, if put in a small enough space, rapidly dissipated enough, in a patient who is sensitized to develop problems, any concentration is enough to give them problems.
Q. Would that be an allergic-type reaction or a toxic-type?
A. Bob, you can't separate the two, because a toxic reaction to ammonia gas can be a bronchospasm, which may or may not be reversible. I don't understand, personally, how that differs from an allergic reaction to ammonia, given the same physical findings, bronchospasm, wheezing, shortness of breath. I think everyone is allergic to ammonia, in that all people will react, if given sufficient concentration. Some will react more than others.
Q. If I understand what you're saying, she had a reaction to the inhaling of ammonia fumes, that could very well be much more severe in someone who did not have the preexisting pulmonary problems, is that correct?
A. Let me restate it. A patient who has reactive airways disease prior to their exposure to ammonia, would be much more likely to react with bronchospasm, to a lower concentration, or to the same concentration in a larger area, than a person who did not have a predisposition to this. Everyone will react at sufficient concentrations.
Both Dr. Maddux and Dr. Williams felt that Mrs. Harter's exposure to ammonia had aggravated her pre-existing lung condition. Dr. Maddux gave Mrs. Harter a 5-10% permanent partial disability of the body as a whole and he causally related her permanent impairment to her exposure to the ammonia. Although he recognized that Mrs. Harter's lung problems could be an allergic reaction, based on his knowledge of the situation, he felt that she suffered a direct injury to the lung tissue.
Mrs. Harter testified that before this incident, she did not know that ammonia could damage lungs. Mr. Callahan, the owner of Advance, testified that no claim had ever been made against the company by someone charging injury or harm through use of this product other than the claim of Mrs. Harter.
Advance contends that the law does not impose upon the manufacturer of a product the duty to warn persons with hypersensitivities which may cause them to suffer from its product unless there are a substantial number of persons who would be so affected. 2 R.D. Hursh & H.J. Bailey, American Law of Products Liability, § 12:1 (2d ed. 1974); and Grau v. Proctor & Gamble Company, 324 F.2d 309 (5th Cir.1963). Advance argues that there was no evidence...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Walls v. Armour Pharmaceutical Co.
...Barr & Co., 784 F.Supp. 1570 (S.D.Fla.1992); High v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., 610 So.2d 1259 (Fla.1992); Advance Chemical Co. v. Harter, 478 So.2d 444 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), review denied, 488 So.2d 829 (Fla.1986); Moorman v. American Safety Equipment, 594 So.2d 795 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992), r......
-
Boudreau v. Baughman
...Craft Boat Company, 271 So.2d 204 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1973). Nor does evidence of safe use for a period of time. Advance Chemical Co. v. Harter, 478 So.2d 444 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1985), review denied, 488 So.2d 829 (Fla.1986). Defendants in products liability cases may not rely on their history o......
-
Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Gill
...An abundance of good luck does not shield a defendant from guarding against foreseeable risks. Accord Advance Chemical Co. v. Harter, 478 So.2d 444, 448 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1985) ("if the injury is reasonably foreseeable, even if rare, the seller cannot rely on its history of good fortune to e......
-
Pinchinat v. Graco Children's Products, Inc.
...a duty to warn of the inherent dangers associated with a product when the product has dangerous propensities. Advance Chem. Co. v. Harter, 478 So.2d 444, 447 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). A manufacturer must take reasonable precautions to avoid reasonably foreseeable injuries to the users of its pro......
-
The duty to warn - a matter of reasonableness, not arbitrariness.
...certain and special responsibility toward the consuming public who may be injured by it." Id. at 86. [9] Advance Chemical Co. v. Harter, 478 So. 2d 444 (Fla. 1st D.C.A. 1985), rev. denied, 488 So. 2d 829 (Fla. [10] Restatement Third, Torts: Products Liability [sections] 2, comment m. In May......