Wickham v. Baltimore Copper Paint Co.

• Decision Date: 24 February 1976
• Docket Number: No. 75-548,75-548
• Citation: Wickham v. Baltimore Copper Paint Co., 327 So.2d 826 (Fla. App. 1976)
• Parties: Arnold James WICKHAM, Appellant, v. BALTIMORE COPPER PAINT COMPANY, and Oliver Eeder & Sons, Appellees.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 826

327 So.2d 826

Arnold James WICKHAM, Appellant, v.BALTIMORE COPPER PAINT COMPANY, and Oliver Eeder & Sons, Appellees.

No. 75-548.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 24, 1976.

Rehearing Denied March 23, 1976.

Sams, Anderson, Alper &Post, Walter C. Ward and R. Thomas Farrar, Miami, for appellant.

Adams, George, Wood, Lee & Schulte and David L. Willing, Miami, for appellees.

Before PEARSON, HENDRY and HAVERFIELD, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff, who was a professional spray painter, was injured by the inhalation of fumes from a paint manufactured by the defendant.On defendant's motion for summary judgment, it appeared without issue that the plaintiff was employed by the City of Coral Gables as a painter and that he read the warning label on the product.This label contained the admonition that the user should avoid breathing the vapor or spray mist, avoid prolonged contact with the skin and that the product should be used with adequate ventilation.It further appeared without issue that appellant used a mask provided him by his employer.Two fellow employees also used masks.The plaintiff suffered ill effects during the use of the paint and mask but continued to use both.He sued both the manufacturer of the mask and the manufacturer of the paint for the personal injury he suffered from inhalation.Summary judgment was entered for the manufacturer of the paint.

On this appeal, plaintiff urges that there is a genuine issue of material fact as to the adequacy of the warning printed on the label.He relies for reversal upon the holding of the Supreme Court of Florida in Tampa Drug Company v. Wait, Fla.1958, 103 So.2d 603.

We hold that the summary judgment was properly entered because the issue of the adequacy of the warning on the label was not a material issue.The plaintiff and his employer were warned by the label, of which they had knowledge, and...