Hauenstein v. Loctite Corp.

• Decision Date: 20 April 1984
• Docket Number: No. C4-82-1396,C4-82-1396
• Citation: 347 N.W.2d 272
• Parties: Ward HAUENSTEIN, Appellant, v. The LOCTITE CORPORATION, Respondent, S.H. ANSELL COMPANY, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff, v. Michael P. REDMOND and Charles K Sumner, etc., Third-Party Defendants.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

Page 272

347 N.W.2d 272

Ward HAUENSTEIN, Appellant, v. The LOCTITE CORPORATION, Respondent, S.H. ANSELL COMPANY, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff, v. Michael P. REDMOND and Charles K Sumner, etc., Third-Party

Defendants.

No. C4-82-1396.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

April 20, 1984.

Syllabus by the Court

1. A manufacturer's duty to warn in strict liability cases extends to all reasonably foreseeable users. Where a plaintiff seeks damages for both negligence and strict liability based solely on failure to warn, the plaintiff must submit the case to the jury on only one theory.

2. The jury's decision on causation is dispositive of both the strict liability and the negligence claims.

Ralph E. Koenig, and Michael L. Weiner, Minneapolis, for appellant.

R.D. Blanchard, Minneapolis, for respondent.

Considered and decided by the court en banc without oral argument.

PETERSON, Justice.

This is a personal injury action brought by appellant, Ward Hauenstein, seeking damages for a serious injury sustained to one of his eyes while using Loctite Retaining Compound No. 35 (RC-35), an adhesive produced by respondent, The Loctite Corporation. ¹ Hauenstein alleged that Loctite was strictly liable and liable in negligence solely for failure to warn Hauenstein that RC-35 contained acrylic acid and could cause blindness if it contacted eye tissue. The trial court submitted both theories to the jury. The jury made the following findings by special verdict:

1. Was [Loctite] negligent? Yes.

2. Did [Loctite's] negligence cause the injury? No.

3. Was the [RC-35] in a defective condition? No.

4. Did the defective condition cause the injury? Not applicable.

5. Was [Hauenstein] negligent? Yes.

6. Did [Hauenstein's] negligence cause his injury? No.

7. No apportionment by the jury of the parties fault. (Not applicable.)

8. [Hauenstein] suffered damages of $200,000.

The trial court ordered judgment for Loctite based on these findings. Hauenstein moved the court for an amended verdict or a new trial, contending that the jury's special verdict findings were perverse, inconsistent, and irreconcilable. The appeal taken from the order denying that motion raises these issues:

1. Whether the special verdict finding that Loctite was negligent and the finding that there was no product defect are inconsistent as a matter of law.

2. Whether the finding that Loctite's negligence did not cause the injury is nevertheless dispositive of this case.

The events giving rise to this litigation are uncomplicated. In May 1974, Ward Hauenstein took his Porsche automobile to a service garage to investigate an oil leak. He arranged to do most of the work himself. He was cautioned to be careful with the garage's tools and equipment for his own safety. While repairing the oil leak, he decided to tighten certain bolts under the engine that had a tendency to loosen. An employee of the garage recommended securing the bolts with RC-35. Hauenstein read the label on the bottle and applied the RC-35 without incident.

Because the engine continued to leak oil, Hauenstein returned to the garage the following month. He removed the engine and placed it on a work bench. He thought that the oil leak might be caused by a faulty seal on the engine's oil cooler, so he removed the oil cooler and replaced the seals. He reassembled the oil cooler and decided to secure the bolts with RC-35. When he first attempted to apply the RC-35, nothing appeared. He looked at the nozzle to see if it was obstructed, and he may have wiped it with a rag. He again attempted to apply the RC-35. He leaned over the engine and directed the bottle of RC-35 toward the oil cooler bolts. The oil cooler was between Hauenstein and the bottle of RC-35. The bottle was in a position roughly parallel to the ground and presumably was pointed toward Hauensteins' body, with the nozzle about 12 inches from his face. On this second attempt he squeezed the bottle more firmly and a quantity of RC-35 entered his eye.

Hauenstein testified that he thought the nozzle suddenly came off the bottle of RC-35. He stated that he "felt something let loose" as he was squeezing and "thought" he saw the nozzle fly toward his face in the instant before the RC-35 entered his eye. The owner of the garage testified that he "thought" the nozzle was still on the bottle after the accident. Hauenstein was unable to produce the bottle at trial.

RC-35 is advertised only in industrial publications, and it is available only through industrial product distributors. Loctite acknowledges, however, that anyone could buy RC-35 from a distributor.

RC-35 is a strong eye irritant containing 6.2% acrylic acid. Common chemical reference books listed acrylic acid as corrosive, hazardous, and a severe irritant; Loctite's test results indicated that RC-35 caused blindness in rabbits. Loctite did not place warnings on the containers of RC-35 sold in 1974 nor did it list the chemical ingredients. It gave three reasons for the absence of warnings. First, it stated that the normal conditions under which RC-35 is used would make eye contact impossible. According to Loctite, RC-35 could not come into contact with the user's eyes because the bottle must be turned upside down, away from the user's face, for the product to be dispensed drop by drop. The product is sold in a small plastic bottle with a press-fitted, clear plastic nozzle. Because the product must be kept in contact with air, the bottle is only half filled, and therefore, to dispense the product, the bottle must be turned upside down. RC-35 is a viscous liquid, the consistency of corn syrup. Very firm pressure must be used on the bottle to cause small drops to appear at the pinhole-sized opening in the nozzle. Loctite admitted that it was aware of instances where users pried the nozzle out of the bottle but stated that it was not aware of instances where the nozzle suddenly came off while the product was being dispensed.

Loctite's second reason for not placing warning labels on bottles of RC-35 was the product's history of safe use. Over 200,000 bottles of RC-35 were sold in the 8 years preceding Hauenstein's injury, and Loctite had never received reports of injuries from its use.

Loctite's third reason was that government regulations in effect at the time of Hauenstein's injury did not require warning labels on this type of product nor did chemical industry practices require such warnings. There was unrebutted testimony that standard procedure among industrial users is to presume that all chemicals are hazardous and should be handled accordingly.

1. The sole basis for Hauenstein's claim that Loctite was negligent and that its product was defective was that Loctite failed to warn him that RC-35 could injure his eyes. He contends that the finding that Loctite was negligent but that RC-35 was not defective cannot be reconciled and therefore requires a new trial. Loctite argues that the findings are consistent because the duty to warn in strict liability cases is different from the duty to warn in negligence cases. Whether there is a difference between the duty to warn in a strict liability case and the duty to warn in a negligence case is an issue of first impression in this state.

Several jurisdictions have recognized that the standard for the duty to warn in strict liability cases is based upon concepts of negligence. If the failure to warn is not negligent, the product is not "defective," and there is no strict liability. See Annot., 53 A.L.R.3d 239, 246 (1971). This parallel was noted in the dissenting opinion in Holm v. Sponco Manufacturing, Inc., 324 N.W.2d 207 (Minn.1982): "As a practical matter, where the strict liability claim is based on * * * failure to warn * * * there is essentially no difference between strict liability and negligence." Id. at 215.

The jury instructions given in this case reflect this parallel. On the strict liability claim, the jury was instructed as follows:

A product is in a defective condition if, at the time it leaves the manufacturer's hands, it is in a condition which is unreasonably dangerous to the ordinary user.

A condition is unreasonably dangerous if it is dangerous when used by an ordinary user who uses it with the knowledge common to the community as to the product's characteristics and common usage.

The defect may be in the product itself, in its preparation, in its container or packaging, or in the instructions necessary for its safe use.

The negligence instruction focused on the duty to warn:

A manufacturer of goods has a duty to give a reasonable warning as to dangers inherent or reasonably foreseeable in using the goods in the manner specified. This duty applies even though the goods may not be used in their specified manner, so long as such use is one that the manufacturer should reasonably foresee.

Under both theories, Loctite's duty to warn was defined in terms of reasonableness. Notwithstanding the apparent inconsistency between the finding of negligence and the finding of no strict liability, Loctite contends that the two findings can nevertheless be reconciled because the duty to warn in strict liability extends only to the ordinary user (industrial users), while under a negligence theory, the duty extends to all foreseeable users. Loctite argues that the jury could have concluded that Hauenstein was a foreseeable user but not an ordinary user and that the failure to warn ordinary users was reasonable given industry procedures regarding the use of chemicals.

An interpretation that limits the duty to warn in product defect cases is contrary to our case law. In Holm v. Sponco Manufacturing, Inc., 324 N.W.2d 207 (Minn.1982), we cited authority to the effect that a manufacturer's duty regarding defective products extended to "anyone who is likely to be exposed to danger when the product is used in the manner for which the product was intended, as well as an unintended yet reasonably foreseeable use." Id. at 212.

We...