McLaughlin v. Mine Safety Appliances Co.
226 N.Y.S. 407, 181 N.E.2d 430 (1962)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A distributor's liability for failure to adequately warn is superseded when an intermediary with actual knowledge of the product's latent danger and proper use acts with gross negligence by providing the product to an ultimate user without a warning, thereby preventing the user from being warned.
Facts:
- Frances Ann McLaughlin, a six-year-old child, nearly drowned and was carried from a lake in an unconscious state.
- The Bennington Volunteer Fire Department responded with 'M-S-A Redi-Heat Blocks,' distributed by the defendant, to help revive her.
- The blocks, covered in a flannel-like 'flocking,' could reach surface temperatures of over 200 degrees Fahrenheit within minutes of activation.
- The product's cardboard container included instructions in small print stating to 'Wrap in insulating medium, such as pouch, towel, blanket or folded cloth.'
- A fireman, Paul Traxler, who was present at a prior demonstration by the defendant's representative and knew the blocks required insulation, activated them.
- Traxler gave the activated, uninsulated blocks to a woman who identified herself as a nurse.
- The nurse applied the bare blocks directly to McLaughlin's body under blankets, while Traxler watched.
- As a result, McLaughlin suffered third-degree burns over her body.
Procedural Posture:
- Frances Ann McLaughlin and her father sued the defendant distributor in the Supreme Court, Nassau County, which is the trial court of first instance.
- A jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs.
- On appeal by the defendant, the Appellate Division unanimously reversed and ordered a new trial unless the plaintiffs stipulated to a reduction in the damages award.
- The plaintiffs so stipulated, and a modified final judgment was entered.
- The defendant then appealed from that judgment to the Court of Appeals of New York, 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:
Does an intermediary's actual knowledge of a product's dangers and his subsequent failure to warn an ultimate user constitute a superseding cause that insulates the product's distributor from liability for its own failure to provide an adequate warning on the product itself?
Opinions:
Majority - Foster, J.
Yes. An intermediary's gross negligence in failing to convey a known warning can be a superseding cause that insulates a distributor from liability. The pivotal issue in this case is not the general duty to warn, but proximate causation. The jury could have found that the fireman, Traxler, had actual knowledge of the danger from prior demonstrations. His actions—activating the blocks, removing them from their container (depriving the nurse of the opportunity to read the instructions), giving them to the nurse uninsulated, and then watching her misapply them—constituted gross negligence. Such conduct was not foreseeable by the defendant distributor. When an original vendee has actual knowledge of a latent danger and deliberately passes the product to a third person without warning, their negligence supersedes that of the distributor and breaks the chain of causation.
Dissenting - Van Voorhis, J.
No. The intermediary's negligence does not constitute a superseding cause that breaks the chain of causation. The jury found that the defendant had a duty to inscribe the warning directly on the heat block because it was reasonably foreseeable that the container with the instructions would be discarded. The fireman's failure to warn the nurse was precisely the type of foreseeable negligence that made the defendant's failure to place a warning on the block itself negligent in the first place. Under the Restatement of Torts, an intervening negligent act by a third party does not become a superseding cause if the likelihood of such an act was one of the hazards that made the original actor's conduct negligent.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the doctrine of superseding cause within failure-to-warn products liability cases. It establishes that a third party's actual knowledge and subsequent gross negligence can sever the causal link between a manufacturer's or distributor's inadequate warning and a plaintiff's injury. The ruling narrows the scope of a distributor's liability, distinguishing between a third party's mere failure to inspect and a third party's conscious disregard of a known danger. Future litigation in this area will likely focus on the level of the intermediary's knowledge and the egregiousness of their conduct in determining if it rises to the level of a superseding cause.
Unlock the full brief for McLaughlin v. Mine Safety Appliances Co.