Haley v. Allied Chemical Corp.
| Decision Date | 01 December 1967 |
| Citation | 353 Mass. 325,231 N.E.2d 549 |
| Parties | , 4 UCC Rep.Serv. 933 Madeline HALEY et al. 1 v. ALLIED CHEMICAL CORPORATION (and a companion case 2 ). |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Albert P. Zabin, Boston, for plaintiffs.
Peter D. Cole, Groton, for Allied Chemical Corp.
Steven J. Cohen, Boston (Bertram A. Sugarman, Boston, with him), for Plax, Inc.
Before WILKINS, C.J., and SPALDING, CUTTER, KIRK and SPIEGEL, JJ. KIRK, Justice.
The plaintiffs brought these actions for personal injuries, alleging negligence and breach of warranty, against Allied Chemical Corporation (Allied) a vendor of acids, and against Plax, the manufacturer of the containers of the acids. The plaintiff Madeline was employed as an etcher by North American Electronics Corp. (Electronics) the buyer of the acids. Verdicts were directed for both Allied and Plax on the warranty counts. The negligence counts were submitted to the jury, who returned verdicts for Plax and for the plaintiffs against Allied. The judge, subject to exception, entered verdicts for Allied under leave reserved. The exceptions argued are to the action of the judge in directing verdicts for Allied and Plax on the warranty counts and in entering verdicts for Allied on the negligence counts.
We review and summarized the evidence under the rule stated in Kelly v. Railway Exp. Agency, Inc., 315 Mass. 301, 302, 52 N.E.2d 411; Tanguay v. Wood Conversion Co., 347 Mass. 530, 531, 199 N.E.2d 181. Almost all of the evidence came from witnesses called by the plaintiffs, including employees of Allied. Since Electronics' organization in 1959 to the date of the accident on September 13, 1961, it had bought its liquid chemicals from Allied. Among the chemicals were hydrofluoric and nitric acids. Both are extremely corrsive. Hydrofluoric acid, for for example, 'will attack practically everything, glass, steel, all types of metal.' If a sufficient quantity should leak out of a bottle in transit, 'it would burn a hole right through the freight car.' Each of the two acids when shipped by Allied was contained in one gallon bottles or jugs made of polyethylene, commonly called plastic. The jugs were made by Plax pursuant to specifications given by Allied. The buyer of the acids paid a deposit on the jugs, which were returnable to Allied, whose name was impressed in the polyethylene. Polyethylene is a strong, flexible, acid-resistant synthetic material. It retains these characteristics for at least ten years and permits the manufacture of a seamless container. The jugs in which the hydrofluoric and nitric acids were sold to Electronics were closed by a solid nonvented polyethylene screw-on cap within which there was a thin solid polyethylene disc. This type of cap prevents leakage or spillage of the corrosive acids if the jug is turned over. It is a good and safe cap for uncontaminated hydrofluoric acid or nitric acid. It will hold them in the bottle. The jug which exploded had a nonvented cap.
Allied also shipped some chemicals in jugs with vented cpas. It sold hydrogen peroxide to Electronics in either glass or polyethylene bottles with a vented cap. The reason is that hydrogen peroxide decomposes or breaks down rapidly if contaminants are added, creating great quantities of gas which must be released if an explosion is to be avoided. A vented cap was used to release from the jug the gas resulting from the contamination of hydrogen peroxide. Neither hydrofluoric acid nor nitric acid alone generates gas under normal conditions, nor do they when mixed together. If either alone, or a mixture of the two, however, is added to hydrogen peroxide, there is quickly liberated a gas which if confined in a jug would cause the jug to explode. A vented cap differs from an unvented cap in that it has a hole in the top and a slitted plastic washer inside. The slit is closed until the pressure from gas is built up. When the pressure is sufficiently built up, the slit in the washer opens and releases it. When the vent is closed, there is probably no chance of the liquid spilling.
Madeline's job involved in part the use of a prescribed mixture of hydrofluoric and nitric acids to etch parts used in the manufacture of a device produced by Electronics. The parts were then washed in running water and dipped in hydrogen peroxide. The hydrofluoric and nitric acids were mixed in a plastic bottle which was then placed under the sink in the etching room. When new, hydrofluoric acid and nitric acid are visually indistinguishable from distilled water; all are clear. It was customary in the electronics industry to use plastic bottles for mixing acids. On the day of the accident, September 13, 1961, Madeline mixed hydrogen peroxide and distilled water, put the cap on the bottle, placed the bottle under the sink, and started to leave the room when the explosion took place. She did not mix any hydrogen peroxide with hydrofluoric acid. Although she did not know what would happen if she did mix them, she knew that she was not supposed to mix them. She had been told to 'be careful.' She was not sure that the bottle which blew up was the bottle in which she had put the hydrogen peroxide. The identity of the person who mixed the contents of the jug which exploded was never ascertained.
The explosion did not cause the jug to disintegrate or fragment. The cap, which was the strongest part of the unit, remained intact. There were vertical splits or ruptures around the jug caused by the pressure of the gas within it which resulted in the liquid being forcefully expelled.
There was no serious dispute that the probable cause of the explosion was the mixture and containment of hydrogen peroxide and an acid in an unvented plastic bottle. The atmospheric conditions which otherwise might conceivably have accounted for the explosion were not shown to have existed. The experts were agreed with if the plastic bottle containing the mixture had had a vented cap there would have been no explosion.
Allied's representative knew that its jugs were being used to mix and store acids at Electronics, that the employees in the etching room were not skilled chemists, that hydrogen peroxide was kept in the etching room, and that there was a possibility that the acids in the same room might be in contact with it. He testified that two safety meetings...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bulpett v. Dodge Associates, Inc.
...warn of danger, if 'the person on whom that duty rests has some reason to suppose a warning is needed.' " Haley v. Allied Chem. Corp., 353 Mass. 325, 330, 231 N.E.2d 549, 553 (1967), quoting from Carney v. Bereault, 348 Mass. 502, 506, 204 N.E.2d 448 Finally, CUES contends that even if it w......
-
doCanto v. Ametek, Inc.
...92, 64 N.E.2d 693 (1946); Mealey v. Super Curline Hair Wave Corp., 342 Mass. 303, 305, 173 N.E.2d 84 (1961); Haley v. Allied Chem. Corp., 353 Mass. 325, 329, 231 N.E.2d 549 (1967); Martin v. Bengue, Inc., 25 N.J. 359, 366--367, 136 A.2d 626 (1957); Tomao v. A. P. De Sanno & Son, Inc., 209 F......
-
Kenney v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
...whether Whirlpool reasonably might rely on Sears, as retailer, to make necessary repairs under its warranty. See Haley v. Allied Chem. Corp., 353 Mass. 325, 330, 231 N.E.2d 549. There was also evidence that the Somerville fire chief 'followed the line from the outlet into which the refriger......
-
Maldonado v. Thomson Nat. Press Co.
...some reason to suppose a warning is needed, Carney v. Bereault, 348 Mass. 502, 506, 204 N.E.2d 448 (1965); Haley v. Allied Chem. Corp., 353 Mass. 325, 330, 231 N.E.2d 549 (1967); McNeill v. American Cyanamid Co., 3 Mass.App. 738, 326 N.E.2d 366 (1975), and, therefore, has application in the......