Groll v. Shell Oil Co.
1983 Cal. App. LEXIS 2316, 196 Cal.Rptr. 52, 148 Cal. App. 3d 444 (1983)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A manufacturer who sells a dangerous product in bulk to an intermediary distributor discharges its duty to warn by providing adequate warnings of the product's dangers to that distributor; the duty to warn the ultimate consumer then shifts to the distributor who packages and labels the final product.
Facts:
- Shell Oil Company (Shell) manufactured a flammable chemical substance known as BT-67.
- Shell sold BT-67 in bulk quantities to distributors, such as Chase Chemical (Chase), and provided Chase with safety data sheets warning that the product was flammable and should be kept away from open flames and sparks.
- Chase packaged the bulk BT-67 into smaller consumer-sized cans, applying its own brand name, "Park Ranger Stove and Lantern Fuel."
- The label Chase placed on the can included a warning stating the product was "Extremely flammable" and to "Keep away from heat and open flame."
- Sixteen-year-old Scott Groll read the warning label on a can of Park Ranger fuel.
- Groll then poured the fuel onto logs inside a fireplace in an attempt to start a fire.
- When Groll struck a match to light the logs, the fuel vapor ignited, causing an explosion that injured him.
Procedural Posture:
- Scott Groll, through his guardian ad litem, filed a lawsuit in a state trial court against Shell Oil Company, Chase Chemical, and Sports, Ltd.
- Groll settled his claims against Chase Chemical and Sports, Ltd. before trial.
- The case proceeded to a trial against the sole remaining defendant, Shell Oil Company.
- At the conclusion of the plaintiff's case, Shell Oil Company made a motion for nonsuit.
- The trial court granted the motion for nonsuit, entering judgment in favor of Shell Oil Company.
- Groll (appellant) appealed the trial court's order granting the nonsuit to the intermediate appellate court.
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 bulk manufacturer of a dangerous product have a legal duty to directly warn the ultimate consumer when it has already provided adequate warnings to the intermediary distributor who packages and labels the final product?
Opinions:
Majority - Thomas, J.
No. A bulk manufacturer of a dangerous product does not have a legal duty to directly warn the ultimate consumer when it has provided adequate warnings to the intermediary distributor responsible for packaging and labeling the product. The court reasoned that Shell's duty was fulfilled when it provided comprehensive safety data sheets to Chase, the distributor. Citing precedent such as Walker v. Stauffer Chemical Corp., the court emphasized that liability should not extend to a manufacturer who has no control over the subsequent packaging, labeling, or marketing of the product. Requiring a bulk supplier to be responsible for the final consumer warning would impose an "onerous burden" to inspect and enforce labeling practices down the entire chain of distribution. Therefore, the responsibility to warn the end-user shifts to the distributor who controls the final form of the product sold to the public.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the 'bulk supplier doctrine' in product liability law, which limits the duty to warn for manufacturers who do not control the final packaging of their products. It clarifies that liability follows control; the party responsible for packaging and labeling the product for the end-user is the party responsible for providing an adequate warning to that user. This precedent protects upstream manufacturers from liability arising from the subsequent actions of downstream distributors, provided the initial warnings to those distributors were adequate. Future cases involving products sold in a similar supply chain will analyze the adequacy of the warning given to the intermediary and the intermediary's role in preparing the product for market.
