Whitehead v. Dycho Co., Inc.
775 S.W.2d 593, 1989 Tenn. LEXIS 391 (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A manufacturer's duty to warn the ultimate user of a dangerous product is discharged when it provides adequate warnings to a knowledgeable industrial purchaser, whose failure to convey those warnings to its employees constitutes an independent, superseding cause that breaks the chain of proximate causation.
Facts:
- Jo Ann Whitehead was an assembly-line worker for North America Phillips Consumer Electronics Corporation (Magnavox).
- Whitehead's job involved using the chemical solvent naphtha, supplied by Magnavox, to remove excess glue from cabinets.
- The Defendants (Exxon, Union, Dycho, and Buss) manufactured and/or distributed naphtha to Magnavox in bulk 55-gallon drums.
- These drums were labeled as 'flammable' or 'combustible' and 'for industrial use only,' and were accompanied by Material Safety Data Sheets detailing the product's dangers.
- Magnavox was a knowledgeable purchaser that wrote its own specifications for the naphtha it bought.
- Magnavox transferred the naphtha from the labeled drums into small, unlabeled, pump-type containers for its assembly-line employees to use.
- Whitehead took a quantity of naphtha home in a Coke can to clean glue off her work apron.
- Whitehead was severely injured by an explosion in her home's laundry room, which occurred when she poured the naphtha into her washing machine.
Procedural Posture:
- Jo Ann and Johnny R. Whitehead (Plaintiffs) sued multiple chemical manufacturers and distributors (Defendants) in a state trial court on theories of strict liability, breach of warranty, and negligent failure to warn.
- The trial court granted the Defendants' joint motion for summary judgment and dismissed the lawsuit.
- The Plaintiffs, as appellants, appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for a trial on the merits.
- The Defendants, as appellants, appealed the decision of the Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court of Tennessee.
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 employer's failure to warn its employee about the dangers of a chemical constitute a superseding cause that relieves the chemical's manufacturer of liability, when the manufacturer provided adequate warnings to the employer?
Opinions:
Majority - Drowota, Chief Justice
Yes. An employer's failure to warn its employee about a dangerous chemical is a superseding cause that relieves the manufacturer of liability where the manufacturer provided adequate warnings to the employer. The court found it was reasonable for the Defendants to rely upon Magnavox, a sophisticated and knowledgeable industrial purchaser, to convey information about the hazards of naphtha to its employees. The Defendants fulfilled their duty by providing warnings on the bulk containers and supplying Material Safety Data Sheets. Magnavox's subsequent actions—transferring the chemical into small, unlabeled containers and failing to warn its employees—constituted an independent, intervening act that was the proximate cause of Whitehead's injuries. This act broke the causal connection between any alleged negligence by the Defendants and the harm suffered by Whitehead. Furthermore, since Whitehead never saw the original labeled drums, any additional warning by the Defendants would not have reached her, meaning there was no causal link between the Defendants' warnings and her injury.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the application of the 'sophisticated user' or 'learned intermediary' doctrine within the context of industrial products liability in Tennessee. By holding that a manufacturer can discharge its duty to warn by adequately informing a knowledgeable employer, the court shifts the ultimate legal responsibility for employee safety to the employer. This creates a significant defense for bulk suppliers of industrial chemicals and places a heavy burden on plaintiffs to prove that the employer's actions did not constitute a superseding cause. The ruling underscores the critical importance of proximate causation, demonstrating that a breach of duty is not actionable unless it is the direct and foreseeable cause of the injury, a link that can be severed by the conscious, independent acts of an intermediary.
