Swope v. Columbian Chemicals Co.
52 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 647, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 934, 281 F.3d 185 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer may be liable for an intentional tort if it knew with substantial certainty that its actions would cause harm to an employee. A product manufacturer cannot rely on the 'sophisticated user' defense to defeat a failure-to-warn claim unless it proves the user knew or should have known of the specific, latent dangerous characteristic of the product that caused the harm.
Facts:
- Claude Swope was employed by Columbian Chemicals Company ('Columbian') as a maintenance worker.
- Columbian's manufacturing process used ozone, which was produced by generators manufactured by Emery Industries, Inc. ('Emery'), whose successor is Henkel Corporation.
- For over nine years, Columbian continually required Swope to work around ozone without providing him with any respiratory protection.
- Columbian possessed Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) detailing the dangers of ozone, including the risk of fatal inhalation and lung damage from long-term exposure.
- Columbian had been warned by industrial hygienists that its systems were inadequate to protect workers from excessive ozone exposure and that employees were complaining of related symptoms.
- Swope and other employees frequently suffered from 'choke ups,' nausea, headaches, and chest pains due to ozone exposure, and several co-workers had passed out or required hospitalization.
- Emery's instructions for its ozone generator stated that a 30-minute purge cycle was sufficient to drive the ozone out of the generator, making it safe to open for maintenance.
- Swope suffered total and permanent lung damage after he opened an Emery generator for maintenance (following a purge) and was struck by a blast of ozone that had been retained in the machine.
Procedural Posture:
- Claude Swope and his wife sued Columbian Chemicals Company for intentional torts and Henkel Corporation for products liability in federal district court (the court of first instance).
- The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Columbian, dismissing all claims against it.
- The district court also granted partial summary judgment in favor of Henkel, dismissing the Swopes' inadequate warning claim.
- The Swopes voluntarily dismissed their remaining claim (for design defect) against Henkel to create a final, appealable order.
- The Swopes, as appellants, filed a notice of appeal from the summary judgment rulings.
- Subsequently, the district court granted the Swopes' motion under FRCP 54(b) to certify its summary judgment rulings as final judgments.
- The Swopes' appeal was heard by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, with Columbian and Henkel as appellees.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Under Louisiana law, does a genuine issue of material fact exist for an intentional tort claim when an employer knowingly and repeatedly exposes an employee to harmful substances without protection, and for a product liability claim when a 'sophisticated user' is unaware of a product's specific latent defect that contradicts the manufacturer's safety instructions?
Opinions:
Majority - Dennis, Circuit Judge, and Dowd, District Judge
Yes. A genuine issue of material fact exists for both the intentional tort and product liability claims, precluding summary judgment. For an employer's actions to constitute an intentional tort under the 'substantial certainty' prong, the employer must know that the harm is substantially certain to follow from its conduct. The overwhelming evidence—including MSDS sheets, prior warnings from hygienists, frequent employee illnesses, and the lack of safety equipment—creates a triable issue of fact as to whether Columbian was substantially certain its repeated exposure of Swope to ozone would cause him bodily harm. Regarding the product liability claim, the Louisiana Products Liability Act's 'sophisticated user' defense requires the manufacturer to prove the user (Columbian) knew or reasonably should have known of the specific dangerous characteristic at issue. The dangerous characteristic here was not the general toxicity of ozone, but the generator's specific propensity to retain ozone despite the manufacturer's prescribed 30-minute purge cycle. Henkel failed to produce evidence showing that Columbian knew or should have known about this latent defect, particularly when it directly contradicted Emery's own safety instructions.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the high evidentiary bar for defendants seeking summary judgment on intentional tort and sophisticated user defenses in Louisiana. It reinforces that an employer's systematic disregard for known safety hazards and employee health complaints can elevate a workplace injury from a standard workers' compensation claim to an intentional tort suit. Crucially, the ruling narrows the application of the 'sophisticated user' defense by focusing on the user's knowledge of the specific, latent defect causing the harm, rather than its general expertise with the product. This precedent places a greater burden on manufacturers to provide accurate warnings about non-obvious dangers, even to experienced industrial purchasers.
