CARL W. MAY, APPELLANT,
v.
ALLIED CHLORINE & CHEMICAL PRODUCTS, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND ATLANTIC CHEMICALS, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLEES
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.
A worker injured by chlorine gas exposure sued the manufacturer and distributor of the gas. The trial court granted summary judgment for both defendants, and the appellate court affirmed, holding that manufacturers and distributors of industrial chemicals regularly used in business have no duty to warn employees about specific protective equipment when the dangerous nature of the product is known to the user.
No duty exists for a manufacturer or distributor of a chemical regularly used in the course of another's business to inform the user's employees of the details of precautionary measures or specific protective devices when the dangerous nature of the product is already known by the user and adequate warning of that danger has been provided.
“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.”
Establishes the core holding that manufacturers have no duty to warn about specific protective equipment details in industrial contexts where the product is regularly used and known to be dangerous.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCarl May was injured when he entered a room filled with escaping chlorine gas while wearing a gas mask provided by his employer. The gas mask proved i…
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 Foreseeability Of Harm cases and more on FLexlaw
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 pressurized 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 *785occurred 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 adequately convey a warning as to every type of device or method not suitable for filtering the toxic effects of the gas before inhaling. See 2 Harper and James, Torts § 28.5 (1956).
The instant case is distinguished from the case of Tampa Drug Company v. Wait, Fla.1958, 103 So.2d 603. The Tampa Drug case concerned a duty owed by a supplier to a member of the general public to adequately warn such user of the inherently dangerous nature of a product offered to the public. The instant case, upon the other hand, concerns a continuing use of a product by one user in the course of an industrial process in which the user must be presumed to know of the dangers growing out of the use of the product.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Waltraud Mary Sexsmith Clark and Richard J. Clark v. The Boeing Co., 395 So. 2d 1226 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…ltimore Copper Paint Co., 327 So. 2d 826 (Fla.3d DCA), cert. denied, 339 So. 2d 1173 (Fla. 1976); 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 the captain. Appellees had no duty to warn under these circumstances. II. Strict Liability. In order to establish stric…
-
Adair v. THE Island Club, 225 So. 2d 541 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969)…definitions and conclusions are recognized in medical treatises such as Legal 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 So. 2d 603, 75 A.L.R.2d 765: “The measure of the duty of the distributor of an inherently dangerous commodity is now well established to be…
-
Rain v. Smith, 274 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed on authority of Waters v. Rockana Carriers, Inc., 171 So. 2d 57 (Fla. App.1965), and May v. Allied Chlorine & Chemical Products, Inc., 168 So. 2d 784 (Fla.App.1964). SPECTOR, C. J., and WIGGINTON and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Tampa Drug Co. v. Wait, 103 So. 2d 603 (Fla. 1958)