Monsanto Co. v. Jarrell
| Decision Date | 30 May 1990 |
| Citation | 555 N.E.2d 453 |
| Parties | MONSANTO COMPANY, Petitioner (Appellee/Defendant below), v. Arthur E. JARRELL and Juliann Jarrell, Respondents (Appellants/Plaintiffs below). |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Petition for transfer denied (for opinion of Court of Appeals see, 528 N.E.2d 1158).
I must respectfully dissent from the majority's denial of transfer. This products liability case arises out of an industrial accident at the Firestone International Products Plant in Noblesville, Indiana. Plaintiff Arthur E. Jarrell was severely burned on October 19, 1981, when he emptied two fifty-pound bags of "Insoluble Sulphur 60," a product supplied to Firestone by Monsanto, through the upper hatch of a storage bin. The resulting sulphur dust cloud ignited, injuring Jarrell. Jarrell and his wife claim that Monsanto was negligent because it failed to warn him of the inherent dangers of sulphur. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Monsanto, based in part on the fact that the bags of sulphur did contain warnings but Jarrell failed to read them. The Court of Appeals reversed. Jarrell v. Monsanto Co. (1988), Ind.App., 528 N.E.2d 1158. I would grant transfer and affirm the trial court's ruling.
Monsanto labelled the bags of sulphur as follows:
WARNING! ...
SULPHUR DUST SUSPENDED IN AIR IGNITES EASILY! ...
Avoid creating dust in handling.
In addition, Monsanto mailed "material safety data" to Firestone approximately ten months before this accident. This data contained the same and additional warnings regarding the inherent dangers of sulphur. Jarrell failed to read the warning labels on the bags of sulphur prior to emptying them, even though he was aware of warning labels on the bags of various products that he had previously used in the scope of his employment.
Jarrell claims that Monsanto was negligent because it failed to warn him of the dangerous propensities of sulphur and that it should be "strictly liable" for selling a product which was defective and unreasonably dangerous.
Regarding Jarrell's negligence claim, Monsanto owed its duty to Firestone. Monsanto discharged this legal obligation when it provided "material safety data" to Firestone and printed warnings directly on the bags of sulphur, so that workers who handled the material would be apprised of its dangers. It was incumbent upon Firestone to keep the original warning labels intact and otherwise make the "material safety data" available to its employees. By mailing "material safety data" to Firestone and printing warning labels on the bags of sulphur, Monsanto did all that it was legally required to do.
Jarrell did not read the warnings on the bags of sulphur which ignited...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Baker v. Monsanto Co.
...Indus., 275 Ind. 241, 416 N.E.2d 833, 837 (1981); Jarrell v. Monsanto Co., 528 N.E.2d 1158, 1166 (Ind.App.1988), trans. denied, 555 N.E.2d 453 (Ind.1990); Reliance Ins. Co. v. AL E. & C. Ltd., 539 F.2d 1101, 1106 (7th Cir.1976) (applying Indiana law); Nissen Trampoline Co. v. Terre Haute Fi......
-
Leon v. Caterpillar Indus., Inc.
...Motor, 988 F.2d 729, 734-35 (7th Cir.1993); see also Jarrell v. Monsanto Co., 528 N.E.2d 1158 (Ind.App. 2 Dist.1988), trans. den., 555 N.E.2d 453 (Ind.1990) ("Misuse is use for a purpose or in a manner not reasonably foreseeable"). "[T]he key to a successful claim of misuse is whether the s......
-
Spangler v. Sears, Roebuck and Co.
...is an aspect of some strict liability in tort claims see, e.g., Jarrell v. Monsanto Co., 528 N.E.2d 1158 (Ind.App.1988) trans. denied 555 N.E.2d 453 (1990), moreover, an implied warranty claim is much like a fraud claim except that it does not require scienter, see, e.g., PROSSER & KEETON, ......
-
Ritchie v. Glidden Co.
...416 N.E.2d 833, 837 (Ind. 1981)); see also Jarrell v. Monsanto Co., 528 N.E.2d 1158, 1166 (Ind. Ct. App. 1988), trans. denied, 555 N.E.2d 453 (Ind. 1990). 3. Discharge of Duty to Next, Graco contends that even if it had a duty to warn Ritchie of the dangers inherent in the use of high press......