Schwoerer v. Union Oil Co.
17 Cal. Rptr. 2d 227, 14 Cal. App. 4th 103, 93 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1862 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A product warning is inadequate as a matter of law if it fails to warn of known, severe risks, such as permanent vital organ damage, even if it warns of lesser harms like skin irritation. The adequacy of a warning must be commensurate with the magnitude of the potential harm.
Facts:
- Michael Schwoerer was employed by Sierra Contractors from February 1986 through April 1987.
- His job required him to work with Stoddard's Solvent, which was manufactured and distributed by defendants Union Oil, Ashland Chemical, E. R. Vine & Co., and Ebbetts Pass Gas Service.
- The defendants provided Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) which were passed down the distribution chain to Schwoerer's employer, Sierra.
- The MSDS warned of skin irritation, respiratory tract irritation, and central nervous system effects like dizziness, but made no mention of any risk of damage to the liver or other vital organs.
- Schwoerer worked with the solvent in an unventilated tunnel and in a shop where he was exposed to fumes from an open container.
- His work required him to immerse his arms up to his elbows in the solvent without protective gloves, causing his clothes to become saturated.
- Schwoerer's employer ignored his requests for protective equipment and for access to the MSDS, telling him the solvent would only 'dry out [the] skin.'
- On April 3, 1987, Schwoerer collapsed while working and was subsequently diagnosed with chronic liver failure.
Procedural Posture:
- Michael Schwoerer sued Union Oil Company, Ashland Chemical, E. R. Vine & Co., and Ebbetts Pass Gas Service in a California trial court.
- The complaint asserted theories of strict liability and breach of warranty based on defendants' failure to provide adequate warnings.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the warnings they provided were adequate as a matter of law and that plaintiff's misuse of the product barred his claim.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of all defendants and entered a judgment of dismissal.
- Plaintiff Michael Schwoerer appealed the trial court's judgment to the California Court of Appeal.
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's warning for a chemical solvent, which advises of risks like skin irritation and respiratory issues but fails to mention the known risk of permanent liver damage, constitute an adequate warning as a matter of law?
Opinions:
Majority - Puglia, P. J.
No. A product warning is not adequate as a matter of law if it fails to warn of known, severe risks like vital organ damage, even if it warns of lesser harms. The adequacy of a warning is generally a question of fact for a jury and depends on factors including the nature and magnitude of the danger. A warning must be commensurate with the risk of harm; here, the MSDS warned of dermatitis and respiratory irritation but failed to mention the far more severe risk of liver damage. Because defendants are assumed to have known of this devastating potential yet failed to warn of it, they did not meet their burden to show the warnings were adequate as a matter of law. Furthermore, a user's failure to follow precautions for a minor, warned-against risk (skin irritation) cannot be deemed a 'gross misuse' that absolves the manufacturer of liability when the user was never warned of the catastrophic, undisclosed risk (liver failure).
Analysis:
This decision reinforces that the adequacy of a product warning is a fact-intensive inquiry usually reserved for a jury, not a matter of law for a judge to decide on summary judgment. It establishes that a warning's sufficiency is directly tied to the severity of the potential harm; a manufacturer cannot insulate itself from liability by warning of minor risks while omitting catastrophic ones. The case also significantly links the defense of product misuse to the adequacy of the warning, suggesting that a consumer's failure to heed precautions is not an unforeseeable misuse if the warning failed to convey the true gravity of the risk, thereby preventing the user from making an informed choice about safety measures.
