ARNOLD JAMES WICKHAM, APPELLANT,
v.
BALTIMORE COPPER PAINT COMPANY, AND OLIVER EEDER & SONS, 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 professional spray painter injured by paint fumes sued the paint manufacturer for inadequate warning. The court affirmed summary judgment for the defendant, holding that where the warning label adequately advised of inhalation dangers and the plaintiff actually used protective equipment despite experiencing symptoms, the adequacy of the warning was not a material issue of fact.
Summary judgment was properly entered because the issue of warning adequacy was not material. Where both the employer and employee were cognizant of the dangers and the label adequately warned of inhalation risks, the plaintiff's injury could not have resulted from inadequate warnings.
[1] A manufacturer's warning label is adequate as a matter of law when the employer and employee users of the product are aware of the dangers involved.
[2] A warning label on a product is not a material issue for trial when the employer and employee users are already cognizant of the dangers and proceed to use the product.
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“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.”
States the core holding—that warning adequacy is immaterial when the user had knowledge of warnings and dangers.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff Wickham was a professional spray painter employed by the City of Coral Gables. He was injured by inhalation of fumes from paint manufactured…
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 Duty To Warn cases and more on FLexlaw
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 jDaint.
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 proceeded to use a mask during the work. It conclusively appears from the uncontroverted evidence that the proximate cause of plaintiff’s injury could not be the inadequacy of the warning, inasmuch as the injury was not the result of a failure to inform either the employer or the employee of the possibility of injury by inhalation. We have examined Edwards v. California Chemical Company, Fla.App.1971, 245 So. 2d 259, in which the District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, held that a warning failing to instruct the user of how the product could be safely used and failing to prescribe that a respirator be employed and protective clothing worn while using the product presented an issue of fact of whether the label provided fair and adequate warning.
We find, however, that this holding is not applicable to the present situation where both the employer and the employee users of the commercial product were cognizant of the dangers involved. Cf. May v. Allied Chlorine & Chemical Products, Inc., Fla.App. 1964, 168 So. 2d 784.
Therefore, the summary judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Tampa Drug Co. v. Wait, 103 So. 2d 603 (Fla. 1958)
- Gen. Cap. Corp. v. TEL Serv. Co., Inc., 245 So. 2d 259 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971)
- MAY v. Allied Chlorine & Chem. Prods., Inc., 168 So. 2d 784 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)