MacRie v. SDS Biotech Corp.
267 N.J. Super. 34, 630 A.2d 805 (1993)
Rule of Law:
A manufacturer of a hazardous product has a duty to warn foreseeable remote handlers of the product's dangers, and state law product liability claims based on a failure to provide such warnings are not preempted by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) when the warnings are not "labeling" as defined by the Act.
Facts:
- Peter Macrie, Sr., Peter Macrie, Jr., and Toni Marie Macrie (plaintiffs) were employees of a family-run produce broker.
- SDS Biotech Corp. (defendant) manufactured Bravo 500, a fungicide, and sold it to farmer Albert Iulianetti.
- Bravo 500 was sold with a detailed, six-page brochure containing warnings and precautions prescribed by the Federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
- Contrary to the manufacturer's directions and in violation of federal law, Albert Iulianetti sprayed Bravo 500 on his butternut squash after harvesting, while they were stored in bins, effectively "drenching" them.
- Plaintiffs' employer purchased the squash from Albert Iulianetti.
- The Macries, whose job usually involved handling produce in cardboard cartons, received the treated squash in pallet bins and repacked them into cartons.
- During the repacking process, the Macries rubbed off dried Bravo 500 residue, causing particles of the fungicide to become airborne and settle on their skin and enter their lungs.
- The Macries suffered serious injuries as a result of their exposure to Bravo 500.
Procedural Posture:
- Peter Macrie, Sr., Peter Macrie, Jr., and Toni Marie Macrie (plaintiffs) initiated a product liability suit in the trial court against SDS Biotech Corp. (defendant).
- Defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing it was only obligated to warn "users" and that warning plaintiffs was impractical.
- The trial court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment, ruling that defendant's duty to warn extended only to reasonably foreseeable users (farmers) and that broader warnings would be unreasonably onerous.
- Plaintiffs appealed the trial court's summary judgment to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.
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 of a hazardous fungicide have a duty to warn foreseeable remote handlers, beyond its direct purchasers, of the product's dangers, and are such state law failure-to-warn claims preempted by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)?
Opinions:
Majority - Brochin, J.A.D.
Yes, a manufacturer of a hazardous fungicide does have a duty to warn foreseeable remote handlers of the product's dangers, and such state law failure-to-warn claims are not preempted by FIFRA. The court reasoned that it was foreseeable that if farmers misapplied Bravo 500, leaving dangerous residue on produce, employees further down the distribution chain, like the plaintiffs, would risk exposure. Therefore, a jury could find the fungicide defective if adequate warnings were not communicated to such persons. The argument that plaintiffs were not "users" was rejected, as the residue was analogous to a component of a finished product, and manufacturers of components can be strictly liable for failure to warn where the part doesn't undergo substantial change, particularly given New Jersey law's recognition of a manufacturer's duty to warn remote vendees under some circumstances. Applying a risk-utility analysis, the court emphasized that if a product poses a high risk of grave physical harm, the failure to provide warnings may render it defective, even if difficult or expensive to provide. The feasibility of warning remote parties, through methods like requiring vendees to pass on warnings, providing leaflets to distributors, or direct advertising to the public, is a question for the jury. Defendant had not demonstrated beyond genuine dispute that such warnings were not feasible. Regarding federal preemption, the court determined that FIFRA does not preempt state law tort claims for failure-to-warn if the required warnings are not considered "labeling" under the Act. Drawing on New York State Pesticide Coalition v. Jorling, the court explained that FIFRA "labeling" is intended for the end-user, generally affixed to the product's immediate container, and designed to identify and describe the chemicals. Warnings aimed at the general public or remote handlers, such as warning signs, newspaper advertisements, or separate informational sheets, are not "labeling" and thus state requirements for them are not preempted. Therefore, a jury could find that the defendant should have taken reasonable steps to warn persons like the plaintiffs, and the summary judgment could not be sustained on the basis of federal preemption.
Analysis:
This case significantly broadens the scope of a manufacturer's duty to warn in product liability, extending it beyond direct purchasers to foreseeable remote handlers who may be exposed to product dangers, particularly in cases of product misuse. It establishes that the foreseeability of exposure, rather than direct user status, can trigger a warning duty. Critically, the decision provides a narrow interpretation of FIFRA's preemption clause, distinguishing between federally regulated "labeling" and other state-mandated warnings to the public or remote parties, thereby creating an important avenue for recovery for individuals harmed by hazardous pesticides in situations not covered by on-product labels and preserving a role for state common law in product safety.
