May v. Allied Chlorine & Chemical Products, Inc.
| Decision Date | 10 November 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 64-177,64-177 |
| Citation | 168 So.2d 784 |
| Parties | Carl W. MAY, Appellant, v. ALLIED CHLORINE & CHEMICAL PRODUCTS, INC., a Florida corporation, and Atlantic Chemicals, Inc., a Florida corporation, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Highsmith & Ezzo, Miami, for appellant.
Sherouse & Corlett, Richard M. Gale, Blackwell, Walker & Gray and James E. Tribble, Miami, for appellees.
Before BARKDULL, C. J., and CARROLL and TILLMAN PEARSON, JJ.
The plaintiff was injured when he knowingly entered a room into which chlorine gas was escaping. He sued the manufacturer of the gas and the distributor who supplied to his employer the pressized cylinders of chlorine. The trial judge entered a summary final judgment for both defendants and the plaintiff appealed.
There was no contention that either of these defendants was responsible for the escape of the gas, but it is argued that there was a genuine issue of material fact upon a question of negligence. Plaintiff's injury occurred when the gas mask provided by his employer, which he wore into the gas filled room, proved inadequate to protect him from the toxic effect of the chlorine gas. It thus affirmatively appears that the plaintiff recognized that chlorine gas was dangerous because, as previously mentioned, his injury resulted upon his voluntary return to the area with inadequate protection. Appellant contends that under the circumstances of this case, a jury could find there was a duty on each of the defendants to warn the plaintiff, as a handler of their product, that only a particular type of gas mask would be effective in a heavy concentration of chlorine gas.
It appears without conflict that the industrial chemical supplied to plaintiff's employer was regularly used in the employer's business and that it was known by the employer and employee to be dangerous. Under these circumstances, we find no theory of law upon which the manufacturer or distributor of a chemical regularly used in the business of another must inform the user's employees of the details of precautionary measures which should be taken in the event of misuse of the product.
Liability should not be imposed where the dangerous condition is known by the injured person (as in this case the toxic effects of inhaling chlorine gas) and where there was adequate warning as to that effect and where it would be unreasonable to require the supplier or manufacturer...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Seibel v. Symons Corp.
...the pump for the purpose for which it was intended, of which danger the manufacturer did not give notice. In May v. Allied Chlorine & Chemical Products, Inc., 168 So.2d 784 (1964), the District Court of Appeal of Florida held that a manufacturer or distributor of a chemical regularly used i......
-
Adair v. The Island Club
...Medicine Pathology and Toxicology, Gonzales et al., page 717, and Dorland's Medical Dictionary.' See also May v. Allied Chlorine & Chemical Products, Inc., Fla.App.1964, 168 So.2d 784. Chlorine is an inherently dangerous commodity and, as stated in Tampa Drug Company v. Wait, Fla.1958, 103 ......
-
Clark v. Boeing Co.
...Reyes v. Zbin, 217 So.2d 150 (Fla.3d DCA), appeals dismissed without opinion, 225 So.2d 530 (1969); May v. Allied Chlorine & Chemical Products, Inc., 168 So.2d 784 (Fla.3d DCA 1964). Mrs. Clark was aware that opening the door would expose her to noise and fumes. She voiced her objections to......
-
Grand Union Company v. Sutter
...769. I would reverse upon the principles and authority of Grall v. Risden, Fla.App.1964, 167 So.2d 610; May v. Allied Chlorine & Chemical Products, Inc., Fla.App.1964, 168 So.2d 784; Stueber v. Maintenance Inc., Fla.App.1967, 205 So.2d 305; Baione v. City of Tampa, Fla.App.1967, 199 So.2d 7......