High v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp.
1992 WL 125112, 610 So.2d 1259 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A manufacturer is not strictly liable for injuries caused during the dismantling of its product because such activity is not an intended use. However, a manufacturer has a duty under negligence principles to provide timely warnings to purchasers about dangerous substances within its product that may cause injury during disposal or dismantling.
Facts:
- Westinghouse Electric Corp. manufactured electrical transformers, for which it purchased polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) from Monsanto.
- By 1972, Westinghouse knew from Monsanto that PCBs were environmentally persistent and required careful handling and disposal.
- Westinghouse sold these transformers to Florida Power and Light Company (FPL).
- In 1976, Westinghouse sent a letter to its customers, including FPL, disclosing that some transformers might be contaminated with PCBs and should be checked upon disposal.
- From 1967 to 1983, FPL sold its used transformers for junk to a scrap metal salvage business, Pepper's Steel and Alloys (Pepper's).
- The transformers sold to Pepper's had no labels or warnings indicating they contained hazardous PCBs.
- Willie J. High was an employee at Pepper's whose duties involved handling the transformers, during which he came into direct contact with leaking PCB-contaminated oil.
- High later developed adverse health problems that he attributed to his exposure to the PCBs from the transformers.
Procedural Posture:
- Willie J. High sued Westinghouse Electric Corp. in a Florida trial court, alleging claims for strict liability and negligence.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Westinghouse, ruling that the disposal of the transformer was not a foreseeable 'use.'
- High, as appellant, appealed the summary judgment to the Florida Third District Court of Appeal.
- In a split decision, the district court of appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment in favor of Westinghouse, the appellee.
- The district court of appeal then certified a question of great public importance to the Supreme Court of Florida, which accepted jurisdiction to review the case.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a manufacturer liable, under either a theory of strict liability or negligence, for injuries caused by hazardous materials contained within its product when those injuries occur during the product's dismantling and scrapping process at the end of its useful life?
Opinions:
Majority - Overton, J.
No, as to strict liability; Yes, as to negligence. A manufacturer is not strictly liable for injuries occurring during the dismantling of its product because this is not an intended use, but it may be liable for negligence if it fails to provide a timely warning of the dangers associated with the product's contents during disposal. For strict liability under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A to apply, the product must be used for its intended purpose. Dismantling the transformers is a substantial alteration of the product, not an intended use, so strict liability does not apply. However, a manufacturer has a duty to warn of dangerous contents in its product, even when the product is not used for its intended purpose. Westinghouse knew of the PCB dangers as early as 1970 but did not warn FPL until 1976. Whether this warning was timely is a question of fact for a jury. Therefore, summary judgment on the negligence claim was improper.
Concurring in part and dissenting in part - Barkett, J.
Yes, as to both negligence and strict liability. The majority correctly finds a duty to warn under a negligence theory, but it errs by rejecting the strict liability claim. The majority's definition of 'intended use' is too narrow. The prevailing view is that 'intended use' under strict liability includes all reasonably foreseeable uses and misuses of a product. Whether it was reasonably foreseeable to a manufacturer that its product would eventually be dismantled for scrap is a question of fact that should be decided by a jury, not by the court as a matter of law.
Concurring in part and dissenting in part - Kogan, J.
Yes, as to both negligence and strict liability. The fundamental principle of strict liability is to place the cost of injury from dangerous products on the for-profit enterprise that created them, which is better able to absorb the loss than an innocent victim. It is obvious and foreseeable that a sealed container like a transformer will someday be breached, releasing its contents. When that release causes injury, the manufacturer that profited from the product should be held strictly liable. The majority's narrow focus on 'intended use' undermines this core policy.
Analysis:
This case establishes a significant distinction between strict liability and negligence concerning a product's end-of-life cycle. By defining 'intended use' narrowly to exclude post-service dismantling, the court shields manufacturers from automatic liability for injuries in the recycling and disposal chain. However, it simultaneously extends a manufacturer's duty under a negligence theory, requiring timely warnings about latent dangers that can arise long after the product's primary use has ended. This decision compels manufacturers to consider the full lifecycle of their products and provides an avenue for recovery for those injured during disposal, contingent on proving the manufacturer's warning was untimely or inadequate.
