Hazardous Product Manufacturer Has No Duty Of Care To Unforeseeable Product User In Oklahoma
The manufacturer of a fast dry acrylic lacquer thinner for application in the painting of vehicles was sued in Oklahoma after an individual who had acquired a secondhand barrel containing the substance was killed when he was using a plasma cutter to cut off the barrel’s lid. The manufacturer includes on each barrel sold a warning label that reads “FOR PROFESSIONAL USE ONLY” and that “Empty containers may contain product residue, including flammable or explosive vapors. DO NOT cut, puncture or weld on or near containers.” The manufacturer makes no effort to ensure that the businesses who purchase the substance from the manufacturer’s distributors actually sell used barrels to a barrel refurbisher.
Last week, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma granted summary judgment to the product manufacturer. The court concluded that the plaintiff’s design defect theory failed because the plaintiff could not show that the product was “dangerous to an extent beyond that which would be contemplated by the ordinary consumer who purchases it,” which was required under Oklahoma law. First, the court found that the deceased was not one who would foreseeably be expected to purchase the product – he was intent on acquiring the secondhand barrels for farm use, regardless of what was contained in the barrels. The ordinary consumer of this product was an automobile paint and body shop technician. The court explained that the ordinary consumer of this product would expect it to be highly flammable and potentially explosive and therefore the product was not dangerous to an extent beyond that which would be contemplated by the ordinary consumer who purchased it, with the ordinary knowledge common to the community about the product’s characteristics.
The failure to warn claims also failed given that a manufacturer in Oklahoma is not required to foresee that consumers will fail to read a product’s warning and then use the product in a manner that the instructions explicitly warn against. Because the deceased was not an “ordinary consumer” of the product, the manufacturer had no duty to warn him of the product’s danger. The court also granted summary judgment to the manufacturer on the plaintiff’s negligence claims as the manufacturer had no legal duty of care owed to the deceased.
