Larrimore v. American National Ins. Co.
89 P.2d 340, 184 Okla. 614, 1939 OK 201 (1939)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For liability in negligence to attach, a defendant must have actual or constructive knowledge of the specific danger that caused the injury, and if liability is based on a statute, the plaintiff's injury must be of the type the statute was designed to prevent.
Facts:
- The defendant, owner of the Huber Hotel, leased a coffee shop to Mrs. Schultz.
- The defendant furnished Mrs. Schultz with cans of a commercial rat poison called 'RAT DOOM.'
- The poison's label identified it as a 'Poison' and 'phosphorus paste' but contained no warning of flammability.
- The plaintiff, an employee of the coffee shop, was assigned to light a gas steam table.
- While lighting a match near the steam table, a can of the rat poison ignited in a flash or explosion, severely burning the plaintiff's hand.
- The rat poison paste was a compound containing only a small percentage (1.5% to 2.4%) of phosphorus.
- Expert testimony and an in-court demonstration established that the paste was not dangerously inflammable and would only burn slowly when a flame was directly and continuously applied to it.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff sued the defendant hotel owner in the trial court for damages.
- Both parties waived a jury, and a bench trial was held.
- The trial court judge made findings of fact and conclusions of law, entering a judgment in favor of the defendant.
- The plaintiff, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the state's highest 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:
Is a hotel owner who furnishes a commercial rat poison, labeled only as 'poison,' liable for burn injuries caused by the poison's unexpected flammability when the owner had no knowledge of its inflammable properties and the injury was not a result of poisoning?
Opinions:
Majority - Danner, J.
No. A person is not liable for injuries caused by an unexpected characteristic of a product if they had no knowledge of that danger and the harm was not of the type a relevant statute was designed to prevent. First, the plaintiff cannot rely on the statute prohibiting the laying out of poison because its purpose is to protect people from being poisoned, not from being burned. The plaintiff's burn injury is not the class of injury the statute was intended to prevent. Second, under common law negligence, liability requires that the defendant knew or should have known of the specific danger. Here, the defendant knew the product was poisonous but had no actual or constructive knowledge of its flammability; neither the label nor common experience would suggest that a low-phosphorus commercial paste was a fire hazard. Therefore, the injury was not a foreseeable or 'natural' consequence of furnishing a substance known only to be poisonous, and the defendant had no duty to warn of a danger he could not reasonably anticipate.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the principle that foreseeability is a cornerstone of negligence liability. It clarifies that a defendant's duty is limited to risks they are aware of or should reasonably anticipate, rather than making them an insurer against all possible harms. The case establishes a clear distinction between a product's known hazard (poison) and an unrelated, latent hazard (flammability), holding that liability does not automatically transfer from one to the other. This impacts future cases by limiting negligence per se to the specific harm a statute addresses and requiring plaintiffs in common law negligence to prove the defendant had notice of the particular danger that caused their injury.
Unlock the full brief for Larrimore v. American National Ins. Co.