TALQUIN ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC., AND NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANTS,
v.
AMCHEM PRODUCTS, INC., APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Talquin Electric appeals a summary judgment in favor of Amchem Products, the manufacturer of an herbicide (Amdon) that damaged a farmer's crops when misapplied. The court affirmed summary judgment, holding that Amchem was not liable because Talquin's employees knew of the dangers, misused the product contrary to label instructions, and did not rely on any representations of suitability.
Summary judgment for Amchem was proper because: (1) the adequacy of warning labels is immaterial when the plaintiff is aware of the danger, and Talquin's employees knew of Amdon's dangers; (2) the knowing misuse of a product does not render the manufacturer liable, and Talquin's employees knowingly misused Amdon contrary to label instructions; and (3) there are no disputed material facts on warranty claims.
[1] Summary judgment is appropriate where the uncontroverted evidence shows that a plaintiff was aware of the danger posed by a product.
[2] The knowing misuse of a product does not render the manufacturer liable.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Summary judgment is appropriate where the uncontroverted evidence is that a plaintiff is aware of the danger.”
Establishes the legal standard that actual awareness of danger makes label adequacy immaterial, supporting summary judgment.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAmdon herbicide, manufactured by Amchem, was introduced into farmer Harry Bassett's irrigation water by Talquin Electric's employees, devastating his …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Limitation Of Liability cases and more on FLexlaw
MILLS, Judge.
Talquin Electric appeals a summary judgment entered for third-party defendant, Amchem. We affirm.
This protracted litigation arises from the introduction of Amdon, a herbicide containing piclorum, into farmer Harry Bassett’s irrigation water. See Bassett v. Talquin Electric, 362 So. 2d 357 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). The herbicide devastated Bassett’s crops, resulting in a $186,000 settlement. Talquin seeks contribution or indemnification from its supplier, Amchem, the manufacturer of Amdon.
Talquin asserts that the label did not adequately warn of the dangers of Amdon and did not render the product reasonably safe by adequately instructing potential users of the product. Citing Tampa Drug Co. v. Wait, 103 So. 2d 603 (Fla.1958), and cases following it, Talquin argues that the adequacy of warning labels is a jury question not appropriate for summary judgment. The adequacy of the label is immaterial, however, when a plaintiff is in fact warned by the label. Summary judgment is appropriate where the uncontroverted evidence is that a plaintiff is aware of the danger. Wickham v. Baltimore Copper Paint Co., 327 So. 2d 826 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976).
It is undisputed that each of Tal-quin’s employees charged with handling Amdon was aware of the susceptibility of crops to Amdon and of the dangers of using Amdon around irrigation water. They simply didn’t recognize Bassett’s irrigation pond. There being no disputed issue of material fact, summary judgment on the adequacy of the label was appropriate and is affirmed.
Talquin also asserts that Amdon was represented as being suitable for clearing rights-of-way in rural farming communities and, in fact, was not suitable. Talquin argues that there are remaining factual issues as to the binding nature of these representations and as to the suitability of Amdon. We disagree. It is undisputed that the application of Amdon in this case was contrary to the label and to the understanding of the right-of-way crew.
Talquin’s employees recognized the use that they made of Amdon was improper. They unquestionably did not rely on any representations as to Amdon’s suitability. The knowing misuse of a product does not render the manufacturer liable, Clark v. Boeing, 395 So. 2d 1226 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981).
Finally, Amchem labeled each of its can-nisters of Amdon with a limitation of liability. No contention is made that this limitation was not conspicuous, see Monsanto v. Edenfield, 426 So. 2d 574 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983) [opinion on rehearing 8 February 1983].
There is no disputed issue of material fact on Talquin’s warranty claims and summary judgment was proper. AFFIRMED.
ERYIN and NIMMONS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jones v. The Heil Co., 566 So. 2d 565 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)…to warn where the injured party had prior actual knowledge of the hazard, ap-pellee relies upon cases such as Babine v. Gilley’s Bronco Shop, Inc., 488 So. 2d 176 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), and Talquin Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Amchem Products, Inc., 427 So. 2d 1032 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). The cases cited by appellee involve allegations of failure to warn where the particular hazards were either obvious or were well known to the person who was injured. Here, the appellant’s knowledge was limited to a single prior…
-
Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. Reid, 501 So. 2d 653 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)…ific’s nondefective product — but not Georgia-Pacific. See, e.g., Perez v. National Presto Industries, Inc., 431 So. 2d 667 (Fla. 3d DCA), petition [*655] denied, 440 So. 2d 352 (Fla.1983); Talquin Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Amchem Products Inc., 427 So. 2d 1032 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Clark v. Boeing Co., 395 So. 2d 1226 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Watson v. Lucerne Machinery & Equipment, Inc., 347 So. 2d 459 (Fla. 2d DCA), cert. denied, 352 So. 2d 176 (Fla.1977). Further, there can be no contention of vicarious li…
-
Huber v. Basic Chem. Servs., Inc., 521 So. 2d 251 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)…although he was aware of the instruction he received to avoid skin contact with the chemical, he had allowed the chemical to contact his skin and thereby suffered the burns. Appellee relies upon Talquin Electric Cooperative v. Amchem Products, Inc., 427 So. 2d 1032 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), to support its position that the adequacy of the warning is immaterial in this case since appellant admittedly was in fact warned to avoid skin contact, failed to heed that warning, and thereby suffered injury. A distinction ex…
Authorities Cited
- Tampa Drug Co. v. Wait, 103 So. 2d 603 (Fla. 1958)
- Waltraud Mary Sexsmith Clark and Richard J. Clark v. The Boeing Co., 395 So. 2d 1226 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Monsanto Agric. Prods. Co. v. Clinch Edenfield, 426 So. 2d 574 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- Bassett v. Talquin Elec. Coop., Inc., 362 So. 2d 357 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)
- Gonzalez v. Ryder Sys., Inc., 327 So. 2d 826 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)