MICHAEL F. HUBER AND KATHLEEN HUBER, HUSBAND AND WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
BASIC CHEMICAL SERVICES, 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.
Michael Huber suffered severe burns from a chemical sold by Basic Chemical Services and sued for inadequate warning of dangers. The court reversed summary judgment, holding that factual questions remain about whether the warning adequately communicated the risks of skin contact, including exposure through diluted forms.
Summary judgment was improper because factual questions remain about whether the warning was adequate. The adequacy of a warning is not immaterial merely because the plaintiff received some warning; rather, the warning must communicate with sufficient intensity to cause a reasonable person to exercise appropriate caution given the potential dangers.
[1] A defendant's motion for summary judgment based on a plaintiff's admitted failure to heed a warning is insufficient if the plaintiff can present evidence challenging the…
[2] The adequacy of a warning is a question of fact for the trier of fact when a plaintiff alleges the warning did not convey the full extent of the danger or necessary preca…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Implicit in the duty to warn is the duty to warn with a degree of intensity that would cause a reasonable man to exercise for his own safety the caution commensurate with the potential danger.”
Establishes the standard for adequate warnings—intensity of communication must be proportional to the danger posed
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMichael Huber was injured by a chemical sold by Basic Chemical Services when diluted chemical splashed back from a wall after being sprayed. Although …
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 Adequacy Of Warning cases and more on FLexlaw
WIGGINTON, Judge.
Appellants appeal a final summary judgment entered in favor of appellee. We reverse.
Appellant, Michael Huber, brought this personal injury action against appellee, seeking damages for severe bums he suffered while handling a chemical sold to him by appellee. He alleged, inter alia, that appellee failed to warn him adequately of the dangers of using the chemical. Appellant, Kathleen Huber, sought damages for loss of consortium.
Appellee moved for summary judgment on the ground that appellant Michael Huber admitted in his deposition that, 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 exists, however, between the circumstances of the instant case and those in Talquin. Here, the record indicates that appellant could present evidence that challenges the sufficiency of the limited warning he received from appellee. According to his deposition testimony, he was not aware of the chemical’s potential for causing injury to his skin even in a diluted state, as in water splashed back from a wall on which the chemical had been sprayed, which was, in fact, the manner in which he was injured. Thus, unlike the situation in Talquin, in the instant case, questions of fact remain as to whether the “warning” given by appellee in this case was sufficient to constitute an adequate warning of the dangers inherent in the chemical and of the necessary safety precautions to be taken when using it.
According to Tampa Drug Company v. Wait, 103 So. 2d 603 (Fla.1958):
Implicit in the duty to warn is the duty to warn with a degree of intensity that would cause a reasonable man to exercise for his own safety the caution commensurate with the potential danger. As in Wait, in this case a conclusion on those questions is a matter for the trier of fact. Therefore, summary judgment was improper in this case.
REVERSED.
BOOTH and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hayes v. Spartan Chem. Co., Inc., 622 So. 2d 1352 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)…ty to warn under such circumstances. The First District held that the plaintiff had presented adequate proof to make the issue of warning a jury question. We conclude that Harter has not been overruled by Felix. See also Huber v. Basic Chem. Servs., 521 So. 2d 251 (Fla. 1st DCA1988) (summary judgment reversed concerning adequacy of warnings to prevent burns on hands by chemicals); Slover v. Control Chem. Corp., 548 So. 2d 303 (Fla. 5th DCA1989) (summary judgment reversed concerning warnings on formaldehyde in…
Authorities Cited
- Tampa Drug Co. v. Wait, 103 So. 2d 603 (Fla. 1958)
- Talquin Elec. Coop., Inc. v. Amchem Prods., Inc., 427 So. 2d 1032 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)