Gaines-Tabb v. ICI Explosives, USA, Inc.
1998 Colo. J. C.A.R. 6258, 160 F.3d 613, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 28228 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Oklahoma law, a manufacturer is not liable for negligence or product liability when an unforeseeable, independent, and intentionally criminal act of a third party constitutes a supervening cause of the plaintiff's injuries, breaking the chain of proximate causation, and the product is not unreasonably dangerous to its ordinary consumer.
Facts:
- On April 19, 1995, a massive bomb exploded in Oklahoma City, destroying the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building, killing 168 people, and injuring hundreds.
- ICI Explosives manufactured ammonium nitrate (AN), which can be either "explosive grade" (low density, high porosity, absorbs fuel for detonation) or "fertilizer grade" (high density, low porosity, does not absorb fuel for detonation).
- ICI allegedly sold explosive-grade AN, mislabeled as fertilizer-grade AN, to Farmland Industries, which then sold it to Mid-Kansas Cooperative Association.
- An individual using the alias "Mike Havens," believed to be Timothy McVeigh or Terry Nichols, purchased 4000 pounds of the mislabeled AN from Mid-Kansas.
- The perpetrators of the Oklahoma City bombing used this 4000 pounds of AN, mixed with fuel oil, to construct the bomb that demolished the Murrah Building.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs filed a diversity action in federal district court (Western District of Oklahoma) on behalf of themselves and others injured by the bombing, against ICI Explosives, Imperial Chemical Industries, PLC, and ICI Canada.
- Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint presented theories of negligence, negligence per se, negligent entrustment, negligent infliction of emotional distress, intentional infliction of emotional distress, manufacturers’ products liability, strict liability for ultrahazardous or abnormally dangerous activity, and fraud and deceit.
- The district court granted ICI Explosives' motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
- Imperial Chemical Industries, PLC and ICI Canada subsequently moved to join ICI's motion to dismiss.
- The district court granted Imperial Chemical Industries, PLC and ICI Canada's motion, dismissing the action as to all defendants.
- Plaintiffs appealed the district court's dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth 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 manufacturer's alleged negligence in mislabeling and distributing ammonium nitrate, subsequently used in an unforeseeable terrorist bombing, constitute a proximate cause of the victims' injuries or render the product unreasonably dangerous for purposes of product liability under Oklahoma law?
Opinions:
Majority - Ebel, Circuit Judge
No, a manufacturer's alleged negligence in mislabeling and distributing ammonium nitrate, which was subsequently used in an unforeseeable terrorist bombing, does not constitute a proximate cause of the victims' injuries, nor does it render the product unreasonably dangerous for product liability under Oklahoma law. The court held that the criminal acts of the bomber constituted a supervening cause that broke the chain of proximate causation for all negligence claims. Under Oklahoma law, an intervening act becomes a supervening cause if it is independent of the original act, adequate by itself to bring about the injury, and not reasonably foreseeable. The court found that the intentional and criminal bombing was an unforeseeable act, as very few successful terrorist actions using ammonium nitrate had occurred, and only a small number of persons would be able to carry out such a complex crime. Thus, it was not foreseeable to ICI that their AN would be used in such a manner. For negligence per se claims, even if statutory violations occurred, the lack of proximate cause remained an insurmountable barrier. Regarding manufacturers' products liability, the court applied the "ordinary consumer expectation" test, finding no allegation that the AN was less safe than a farmer, its ordinary consumer, would expect. The mere availability of alternative, safer formulas does not establish a defect. Furthermore, the duty to warn extends only to ordinary consumers and users, not to prevent unforeseeable criminal misuse, so ICI had no duty to warn suppliers of such a possibility. Other claims were waived due to insufficient appellate argument.
Analysis:
This case significantly limits a manufacturer's liability for products that are criminally misused, particularly when the misuse is highly unforeseeable. It reinforces the importance of proximate causation as a legal barrier, especially when a supervening, intentional criminal act intervenes. The Tenth Circuit's interpretation of Oklahoma's "ordinary consumer" test for product liability emphasizes that a product's safety is judged against the expectations of its intended users, not against the possibility of sophisticated criminal repurposing. This precedent provides a strong defense for manufacturers against liability for criminal acts far removed from the product's intended use or foreseeable misuse, highlighting the high bar for establishing foreseeability in such contexts.
