Hayes v. Spartan Chemical Co., Inc.
| Decision Date | 13 August 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 92-03173,92-03173 |
| Citation | 622 So.2d 1352 |
| Parties | 18 Fla. L. Weekly D1816, Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 13,713 Cheryl HAYES, Appellant, v. SPARTAN CHEMICAL COMPANY, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Jeff Chambers of Chambers, Salzman & Bannon P.A., St. Petersburg, for appellant.
Richard E. Wolverton, St. Petersburg, for appellee.
Cheryl Hayes appeals a summary final judgment in her action for negligent failure to warn of a product's danger. The product, a liquid cleaner to which Ms. Hayes had a strong reaction, is manufactured by Spartan Chemical Company. The trial court held the warnings Spartan provided concerning this cleaner were sufficient to render unforeseeable the use of the product by the Clearwater Police Department to remove fingerprint ink from Ms. Hayes' hands. We reverse.
In August 1990, Ms. Hayes went to the Clearwater Police Department to be fingerprinted so that she could work in a day care center. After she had been fingerprinted, the officer sprayed her hands with a cleaning fluid. She wiped the fluid off her hands with paper towels. The fluid was on her hands for only a short time. She believes she may have inhaled some vapor from the fluid because she was leaning over a wastepaper basket when the officer sprayed the fluid.
Shortly after she left the police department, Ms. Hayes began to feel sick. She developed a fever, chills, nausea, and a severe headache. Her chest hurt. After a few days, when the symptoms persisted, she consulted a doctor. She continues to have symptoms that she attributes to the cleaning fluid and continues to be treated by a physician.
An investigation established that the cleaning fluid was "Tough Duty," an all purpose, industrial strength cleaner and degreaser manufactured by Spartan. According to a deposition of a police officer, an independent wholesaler sold the product to the Clearwater Police Department after specifically recommending its use as a hand cleaner for fingerprint ink.
Ms. Hayes sued Spartan on a theory that it negligently failed to warn the Clearwater Police Department of the dangers associated with this product. These allegations are somewhat atypical because Ms. Hayes is not alleging that Spartan failed to warn her. Instead, she claims that Spartan's failure to warn a third party resulted in an improper use of the cleaner on her body. She maintains it was foreseeable that such a misuse of the product could take place in the absence of adequate warnings. Cf. Hayes v. Kay Chem. Co., 135 Ill.App.3d 932, 90 Ill.Dec. 632, 482 N.E.2d 611 (1985) ().
Spartan filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the use of its product by the police department as a hand cleaner was an unforeseeable misuse of the product. It relied on a product information bulletin that was provided to the police department and the warning label on the bottle itself. It did not provide any evidence to establish that this was the first injury of this sort or that Ms. Hayes' reaction was the result of some extreme hypersensitivity. Indeed, one of the police officers indicated in her deposition that she believed the cleaner had given her hives. For purposes of summary judgment, it is assumed that the plaintiff's injuries were proximately caused by the isolated exposure to this product.
The warning label on the bottle describes Tough Duty as an "all purpose" cleaner. The label describes the container as a "Handi Spray" bottle, and explains that "a simple spray and wipe blasts away dirt, grease and grime!" A "Note" in standard print states: "Wear safety glasses and resistant gloves." A "CAUTION" in bolder print states:
EYE IRRITANT! Avoid prolonged skin contact. May be harmful if swallowed. Avoid prolonged breathing of mist. Use with adequate ventilation.
The information bulletin also explains that the product is "versatile" and "packaged for maximum user convenience." It contains warnings similar to the package, and states that it is authorized for use "by USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture) and is Kosher and Pareve for Passover and the year round."
Neither Spartan's label nor its bulletin warns that one brief exposure to this product can cause severe nausea and prolonged headaches. Indeed, a warning concerning "prolonged" exposure might suggest that limited exposure or occasional use on the body is not particularly dangerous. The warnings on this spray container are similar to warnings found on mineral spirits and other solvents that people foreseeably use on an occasional basis to remove paint, grease, and other chemicals from their hands.
There are occasions when the adequacy of a warning is a question of law for the judge to decide. These occasions, however, are limited to circumstances in which the warning is "accurate, clear, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Derienzo v. Trek Bicycle Corp.
...of a warning is only a question for the judge when the warning is accurate, clear and unambiguous. See, e.g., Hayes v. Spartan Chem. Co., 622 So.2d 1352 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1993). A warning that is inconspicuously located and written in small print may be deficient. Arbaiza v. Delta Int'l Mach......
-
Sta-Rite Industries, Inc. v. Levey
...N.E.2d 862 (Mass.2001); Ragans v. Miriam Collins-Palm Beach Laboratories Co., 681 So.2d 1173 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Hayes v. Spartan Chemical Co., 622 So.2d 1352 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Adams v. G.D. Searle & Co., 576 So.2d 728 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991), review denied, 589 So.2d 290 (Fla. 1991); Restatem......
-
Eghnayem v. Bos. Scientific Corp.
...to establish the adequacy of the warning because it will be read and considered by a trained expert." Hayes v. Spartan Chem. Co., 622 So.2d 1352, 1354 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993).The Florida Supreme Court has ruled at least twice in notable cases that warnings were adequate as a matter of la......
-
Hunnings v. Texaco, Inc.
...a petroleum product which can be used in various capacities, such as a solvent for cleaning, or as a fuel. Hayes v. Spartan Chem. Co., 622 So.2d 1352, 1354 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1993); Commercial Coating Corp. v. State, 548 So.2d 677, 678 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1989), review denied, 560 So.2d 232 (Fla......
-
Spoliated evidence: better than the real thing?
...a solution to this problem which is less than the ultimate sanction of dismissal, but will still give the manufacturer a fair trial. 622 So. 2d at 1352. Furthermore, in Hernandez v. Pino, 482 So. 2d 450 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), the court considered the fact that there was no proof of bad faith i......
-
The duty to warn - a matter of reasonableness, not arbitrariness.
...never reached the issue of whether, if they were, warnings to learned intermediaries would be a defense. See Hayes v. Spartan Chem. Co., 622 So. 2d 1352 (Fla. 2d D.C.A. 1993); Brito v. County of Palm Beach, Florida, 1998 WL 821757 (Fla. 4th D.C.A. 1998). For the reasons stated infra, in dis......