Yes, his lawsuit can continue. Just because Boyd didn't read the warning doesn't mean the company automatically wins. His whole point is that the warning was bad because it was basically impossible for him to see it, since it was on a box he never handled. Also, for most of his career, the warning didn't even mention the specific danger that hurt him. A company can't use a hidden or unhelpful warning and then blame someone for not seeing it. Because Boyd said he would have been more careful if he had received a proper warning, a jury should get to decide if the company is at fault.

No, the court was wrong to dismiss the case. There are questions about whether the warnings on the boxes were good enough and if that's what caused Boyd to get sick. Just because there's a warning doesn't mean it's a good one. The warning has to be where people can see it and explain the dangers clearly. Boyd showed that a lot of welders never saw the boxes with the warnings. And for many years, the warnings didn't even mention the risk of brain problems from breathing manganese. So even though Boyd didn't read the warnings, the companies could still be responsible if their warnings weren't good enough. A jury should get to decide if better warnings could have prevented Boyd's illness.

No. In a failure-to-warn claim, a plaintiff's failure to read a warning does not automatically negate proximate cause as a matter of law, particularly when the warning's adequacy is challenged. The court reasoned that a warning can be inadequate in its factual content, its expression of facts, or the method in which it is conveyed. A genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether the manufacturers' warnings were inadequate because for 20 years they failed to mention the risk of neurological injury from manganese and were placed on containers that end-users like Boyd often did not see. The court held that if a warning's display is inadequate, the failure to read it does not absolve the manufacturer of liability, because the inadequacy itself can be the proximate cause of the harm. Boyd's testimony that he would have taken precautions had he been properly warned was sufficient to create a jury question on the issue of causation, thus reversing the trial court's summary judgment.

Yes, the trial court erred in granting summary judgment. I find that there are genuine issues of material fact regarding whether the warnings provided by the manufacturers were adequate and whether the inadequacy of those warnings proximately caused Boyd's injuries. The mere fact that a warning exists does not make it adequate; the warning must be properly displayed and communicated to users. Here, Boyd presented evidence that the warnings were not visible to welders because they were placed only on the welding rod containers, which welders rarely saw. Additionally, the content of the warnings was inadequate for many years, failing to mention neurological risks from manganese exposure. Boyd's failure to read the warnings does not absolve the manufacturers of liability if the warnings were inadequate in the manner and form they were provided. A jury could reasonably conclude that if the manufacturers had supplied appropriate and visible warnings, Boyd would have heeded them and taken steps to protect himself. Therefore, summary judgment was improper on the issue of proximate cause.

Boyd v. Lincoln Electric Co.

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot