Humble Sand & Gravel, Inc. v. Gomez
146 S.W.3d 170, 47 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1214, 2004 Tex. LEXIS 894 (2004)
Rule of Law:
A product supplier's duty to warn an ultimate user is not automatically satisfied by warning a sophisticated intermediary; rather, the existence of the duty depends on a balancing of factors including the likelihood of injury, the burden of warning, feasibility, and the reliability of the intermediary to convey the warning.
Facts:
- Raymond Gomez worked as an abrasive blaster for Spincote and later Sivalls between 1984 and 1994.
- Humble Sand & Gravel supplied flint in 100-pound bags to Gomez's employers for use in abrasive blasting.
- The abrasive blasting process creates silica dust, which creates invisible particles that, if inhaled, cause silicosis, an incurable and potentially fatal lung disease.
- While the dangers of silica dust were well known within the abrasive blasting industry and by regulators since the 1930s, individual workers like Gomez were often unaware of the severity of the risk or the necessity of wearing air-fed hoods at all times.
- Humble included warning labels on its bags, but early labels only stated the product 'may be injurious' without specifying it could be fatal or requiring specific equipment; stricter warnings were added in 1993.
- Gomez often wore a paper mask or removed his air-fed hood when active blasting stopped, exposing him to lingering silica dust.
- Gomez contracted silicosis and testified that he would not have worked in the industry had he known the specific fatal risks.
- Humble relied on the industry employers (intermediaries) to enforce safety regulations and warn their own employees.
Procedural Posture:
- Gomez sued Humble and other defendants in state district court for products liability and negligence.
- The jury found Humble liable for a marketing defect and negligence, awarding damages to Gomez.
- The trial court entered judgment on the verdict in favor of Gomez.
- Humble appealed to the Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment.
- Humble filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court of Texas.
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 supplier of flint used for abrasive blasting have a legal duty to warn its customers' employees directly about the fatal risks of silica dust inhalation when the customer-employers are already knowledgeable about those dangers?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Hecht
No, a supplier does not necessarily have a duty to warn the ultimate user if the product is supplied through a knowledgeable intermediary, but the determination relies on a multifactor analysis rather than a blanket exemption. The Court held that while the dangers of silica were common knowledge in the industry, that knowledge did not automatically absolve Humble of the duty to warn the employees. The Court adopted a balancing test derived from the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 388 to determine if reliance on the intermediary is reasonable. The Court found the record insufficient to determine as a matter of law whether Humble's warning would have been effective or if the duty should be shifted entirely to the employer. Consequently, the burden is on the defendant (supplier) to prove that a warning to the ultimate user would not have been effective or necessary under the specific test factors.
Dissenting - Justice O'Neill
Yes, the supplier held a duty to warn the ultimate users because the risk of death was high and the burden of adding a label was non-existent. The dissent argued that the majority misapplied the sophisticated user doctrine. Justice O'Neill emphasized that the employers were known to be unreliable in enforcing safety, and the burden on Humble to print a better warning on the bags was trivial. The dissent argued that because Gomez read the bag and claimed a better warning would have stopped him from working, causation was clear, and the 'sophisticated user' exception should not absolve the supplier of liability when the intermediary is known to be negligent.
Analysis:
This case is significant because it clarifies the boundaries of the 'sophisticated user' defense in Texas products liability law. It rejects a bright-line rule that warning a knowledgeable employer always discharges a supplier's duty to an employee. Instead, it imposes a nuanced, fact-intensive balancing test. This shifts the procedural burden, requiring suppliers to demonstrate that warning the end-user is not feasible or would not be effective, rather than placing the burden on the plaintiff to prove a duty exists. Practically, this makes it harder for bulk suppliers or manufacturers to win summary judgment solely based on their customers' industrial knowledge.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Humble Sand & Gravel, Inc. v. Gomez (2004)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"