Eugene A. Cotton v. Buckeye Gas Products Company
268 U.S. App. D.C. 228, 840 F.2d 935 (1988)
Rule of Law:
A product supplier may satisfy its duty to warn by providing safety information to a sophisticated intermediary, such as an employer, who can be reasonably relied upon to convey that information to end-users. A supplier's allegedly inadequate warning is not the proximate cause of injury when the user was already aware of the product's essential dangers and disregarded direct safety instructions from their employer.
Facts:
- Eugene A. Cotton, an employee of Miller & Long construction company, was responsible for monitoring propane-fueled heaters and changing propane cylinders at a construction site.
- The propane cylinders were supplied by Buckeye Gas Products Company and bore labels warning that the gas was 'flammable' and should not be stored in 'living areas.'
- Buckeye also provided Miller & Long with a National LP Gas Association pamphlet instructing that cylinders not in use should be stored 'outside at ground level.'
- Cotton's superiors at Miller & Long instructed him to close the valves on the cylinders when changing or moving them.
- On the night of the incident, Cotton and a co-worker stored used cylinders inside the construction area, which was enclosed in heavy polyethylene curtains.
- Cotton did not close the valves on approximately 35 used but not empty propane cylinders.
- Gas escaped from the open cylinder valves, ignited, and the resulting fire severely burned Cotton.
- Cotton admitted he knew that propane was flammable and that if gas escaped from an open valve it could ignite and burn him.
Procedural Posture:
- Eugene A. Cotton filed a lawsuit against Buckeye Gas Products Company in federal district court seeking damages for his injuries.
- A jury trial was held, and the jury returned a verdict in favor of Cotton.
- Following the verdict, Buckeye Gas Products Company filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (j.n.o.v.).
- The district court granted Buckeye's motion, setting aside the jury's verdict and entering judgment for Buckeye.
- Cotton, as appellant, appealed the district court's grant of judgment n.o.v. to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a propane supplier breach its duty to warn, and is its conduct the proximate cause of injury, when an employee is burned after disregarding both his employer's explicit safety instructions and the supplier's provided warnings about the product's flammability?
Opinions:
Majority - Williams, Circuit Judge
No. Reasonable jurors could find neither that Buckeye breached a duty to warn nor that Cotton’s injuries were proximately caused by any inadequacy in defendant’s warnings. The court reasoned that under the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 388, Buckeye's warnings were sufficient. The court noted the problem of 'information costs,' where adding too many warnings can dilute the effectiveness of the most critical information. Furthermore, Buckeye satisfied its duty by reasonably relying on the employer, Miller & Long—a sophisticated, experienced company with its own safety program—to communicate safety procedures to its employees like Cotton. Regarding proximate cause, the court found it 'utterly implausible' that any additional warning (such as adding the word 'explosive') would have changed Cotton's behavior. He already knew propane was flammable, knew gas would escape from open valves, and disregarded his employer's direct order to close the valves. His own actions, in clear defiance of known risks and direct instructions, were the superseding cause of his injuries.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the 'sophisticated intermediary' doctrine, allowing a product supplier to discharge its duty to warn by providing adequate information to a knowledgeable employer. It underscores that the duty to warn is not limitless; manufacturers are not required to warn against every conceivable misuse, especially when doing so creates 'information overload' that may render warnings less effective. The case is significant for its stringent view on proximate causation, holding that a plaintiff’s conscious disregard of known dangers and direct safety instructions can sever the causal link to the manufacturer's alleged failure to warn, thereby precluding recovery as a matter of law.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Eugene A. Cotton v. Buckeye Gas Products Company (1988)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"