Products liability law requires manufacturers to supply adequate instructions with products when consumers need them to safely and effectively use the products. This article spells out what the courts say should go into directions and warnings to make them legally adequate. In a nutshell, the courts mandate that instructions contain complete, accurate, and tested directions that consumers can readily notice and follow. Further, instructions must meet government, industry, and company standards. And, for products that can cause harm, the instructions must warn of potential hazards.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
DungworthT., Product Liability & The Business Sector: Litigation Trends in Federal Courts, RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, California, p. 31, 1988.
Cooley v. Carter-Wallace Inc., 478 N.Y.S.2d 375, 376–80 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dept. 1984). Courts weigh “the seriousness of potential harm to the consumer against the costs to the manufacturer. Since the cost of providing warnings is often minimal, the balance usually weighs in favor” of the consumer.
4.
Laaperi v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 787 F.2d 726, 729–33 (1st Cir. 1986). A father recovered on a claim for negligent preparation of instructions: $1,050,000 for the death of his three sons, with a new hearing ordered on the $750,000 award for burns suffered by his thirteen-year-old daughter.
5.
Sharton v. J. H. Westerbeke Corp., 415 N.E.2d 880, 881–82 (Mass. App. 1981). A sailboat owner recovered the lost fair market value of his craft resulting from use of an inaccurate maintenance manual.
6.
Miller Industries v. Caterpillar Tractor Co., 733 F.2d 813, 820 (11th Cir.), reh'g and reh'g en banc denied (1984). Fishermen recovered lost profits for an engine failure resulting from a negligent failure to inform boat owners of an engine defect.
7.
Andersen v. Teamsters Local 116 Building Club, Inc., 347 N.W.2d 309, 311 note 2 (N.D. 1984), citing North Dakota Cent. Code § 28–01.1–06(2).
8.
White v. Amoco Oil Co., 835 F.2d 1113, 1118–19 (5th Cir.), reh'g denied (1988).
9.
Jackson v. Coast Paint and Lacquer Co., 499 F.2d 809, 812–813 (9th Cir. 1974). Instructions on a paint container were potentially inadequate because painters, the intended users, could not understand them.
10.
RossK.Legal and Practical Considerations for the Creation of Warning Labels and Instruction Books, Journal of Products Liability, 4, pp. 37, 40, 44, 1981.
McGuire v. Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, 790 S.W.2d 842, 851 (Tex. App. Beaumont), reh'g denied (1990).
15.
Campos v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 485 A.2d 305, 309–10 (N.J. 1984). An illiterate mechanic received serious injuries when he inserted his hand into the assembly device, a practice that effective graphics could have deterred.
16.
SalterJ. H-.Software Performance Standards Under Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code, The Computer/Law Journal, 9, p. 469, 1989.
17.
BirnbaumL. N.Strict Products Liability and Computer Software, The Computer/Law Journal, 8, pp. 139, 150, 153, 1988.
18.
Huffman v. Caterpillar Tractor Co., 908 F.2d 1470, 1478 (10th Cir.), reh'g and reh'g en banc denied (1990). Widow of pipelayer operator recovered $475,000 for defective product and instructions under strict liability.
American Optical Co. v. Weidenhamer, 404 N.E.2d 606, 615–18 (Ind. App.), reh'g denied (1980). The directions for Super Armorplate eyeglass lenses were deficient because they did not state that the lenses could shatter, a limitation in the product.
21.
BassL., Products Liability: Design and Manufacturing Defects, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, pp. 205, 208–209, 211, 214, 219–222, 1986.
Bottazzi v. Petroleum Helicopters, Inc., 664 F.2d 49, 52 (5th Cir. 1981). Botazzi recovered compensation for psychological harm on an action for negligence. He was a passenger on two ditched helicopter flights.
27.
GemignaniM. C.Product Liability and Software, Rutgers Computer & Technology Law Journal, 8: 2, pp. 192–193, 1988.
28.
Giglio v. Connecticut Light & Power Co., 429 A.2d 486, 489 (Conn. 1980).
29.
Jackson v. Baldwin-Lima-Hamilton Corp., 252 F. Supp. 529 (E.D. Pa. 1966). A maintenance manual that should have mentioned how to lubricate or check for defects in a crane's safety ratchet caused an accident.
30.
Ziglar v. E. I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co., 280 S.E.2d 510, 517–19 (N.C. App. 1981).
31.
Boyl v. California Chemical Co., 221 F. Supp. 669, 672, 674–76 (D. Ore. 1963). A manufacturer who sells a perilous product must provide specific instructions as to all intended and incidental uses, such as storage and disposal. In this case, a homemaker recovered $7910.60 for the manufacturer's negligent failure to completely instruct.
32.
Brownlee v. Louisville Varnish Co., 641 F.2d 397, 401 note 6 (5th Cir. 1981). The directions on a paint can may be defective for not instructing users to empty the can before disposing of it. Plaintiff was burned when a can lying in the trash exploded, spraying hot paint over him.
33.
Bituminous Casualty Corp. v. Black & Decker Manufacturing Co., 518 S.W.2d 868, 873 (Tex. App.), reh'g denied (1974).
34.
Michael v. Warner/Chilcott, 579 P.2d 183, 187 (N.M. App.), cert. denied (1978).
35.
McGuireE. P.Product-Use Instructions: How to Evaluate Them in Manufacturer Negligence, Journal of Products Liability, 11, pp. 294–297, 1988.
36.
Fiorentino v. A. E. Staley Manufacturing Co., 416 N.E.2d 998, 1001–04 (Mass. App. 1981).
37.
Murray v. Wilson Oak Flooring Co., 475 F.2d 129, 132–33 (7th Cir.), reh'g (1973). The directive not to spread Latex adhesive “near” a flame or pilot light was not clearly “sufficient to inform Murray that his spreading of adhesive within four feet of a pilot light located behind a closed door and within eight feet of stove pilot lights three feet off the floor exposed him to the risk of an explosion and attendant fire damage.”
Midgley v. S. S. Kresge Co., 127 Cal. Rptr. 217, 219–21 (Cal. App. 1976).
43.
Hubbard-Hall Chemical Co. v. Silverman, 340 F.2d 402, 405 (1st Cir. 1965). The seller of an insecticide was held liable because the product's warnings lacked “skull and bones or other comparable symbols or hieroglyphics” to alert farm laborers who had limited education and reading ability of potential harm from handling the product.
44.
Gracyalny v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., 723 F.2d 1311, 1318–20 (7th Cir. 1983).
45.
Kelley v. Rival Manufacturing Co., 704 F. Supp. 1039, 1043–45 (W.D. Okla. 1989).
46.
Colson v. Allied Products Corp., 640 F.2d 5, 7 (5th Cir. 1981). A maker has no duty to warn of rocks thrown from a lawn mower.
47.
Whitehead v. St. Joe Lead Co., 729 F.2d 238, 247 (3d Cir. 1984).
Post v. American Cleaning Equipment Corp., 437 S.W.2d 516, 520 (Kent. App. 1969).
50.
Bloxom v. Bloxom, 512 So.2d 839, 843–50 (La. 1987).
51.
De Pree v. Nutone, Inc., 422 F.2d 534, 536–37 (6th Cir. 1970).
52.
Byrd v. Proctor & Gamble Manufacturing Co., 629 F. Supp. 602, 603–06 (E.D. Kent. 1986).
53.
Barber v. General Electric Co., 648 F.2d 1272, 1277–78 (10th Cir. 1981).
54.
Dougherty v. Hooker Chemical Corp., 540 F.2d 174, 180 (3d Cir. 1976).
55.
Brown v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 667 P.2d 750, 757–59 (Ariz. App. Div. 1), reh'g and review denied (1983).
56.
First National Bank in Albuquerque v. Nor-Am Agricultural Products, Inc., 537 P.2d 682, 691–92 (N.M. App.), cert. denied (1975).
57.
GoldbergN. A.GoldblattS., and LiptakT. E., Litigating the “Adequacy” of Product Warnings and Instructions: The Defense Perspective, in Emerging Trends in Product Liability Legislation, WalkowiakV. S. (ed.), Matthew Bender, New York, pp. 10–7 to 10–16, 1986. The authors suggest that a warning also provide steps on how to remedy harm caused by a product.
58.
Salmon v. Parke, Davis and Co., 520 F.2d 1359, 1362–63 (4th Cir. 1975).
59.
Broussard v. Continental Oil Co., 433 So.2d 354, 358 (La. App. 3d Cir.), reh'g denied (1983).
60.
Cotton v. Buckeye Gas Products Co., 840 F.2d 935, 937–39 (D.C. Cir. 1988).
61.
Maize v. Atlantic Refining Co., 41 A.2d 850, 852 (Pa. 1945). A homemaker died from inhaling poisonous vapors from a cleaning solvent.
62.
Schuh v. Fox River Tractor Co., 218 N.W.2d 279, 284 (Wisc. 1974).
63.
Rhodes v. Interstate Battery System of America, Inc., 722 F.2d 1517, 1519, 1521 (11th Cir.), reh'g and reh'g en banc denied (1984).
Gardner v. Q. H. S., Inc., 448 F.2d 238, 243 (4th Cir. 1971). A “cautionary note” on using hair curlers was potentially defective. It appeared in the same type as, and in the middle of, instructions.
66.
O'ReillyJ. T., Product Defects and Hazards: Litigation and Regulation Strategies, Wiley Law Publications, New York, p. 166, 1987.
67.
Pell v. Victor J. Andrew High School, 462 N.E.2d 858, 863 (111. App. 1st Dist. 1984).
68.
Harless v. Boyle-Midway Division, American Home Products, 594 F.2d 1051, 1056 (5th Cir.), reh'g denied (1979). In most cases, violation of industry or other standards is not negligence per se, but is evidence showing lack of due care. In this case, violation of a criminal statute constituted negligence per se.
69.
Ferebee v. Chevron Chemical Co., 736 F.2d 1529, 1542 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1062 (1984). Compliance with federal or state regulatory labeling requirements does not preclude a jury from finding that additional warnings should have been given.
70.
Brocklesby v. United States, 767 F.2d 1288, 1291, 1296–97 (9th Cir.), amended on reh'g denial and reh'g en banc (1985).
Tinnerholm v. Parke Davis & Co., 285 F. Supp. 432, 452–53, 452 (S.D. N.Y. 1968). Drug manufacturer was held negligent for failing to discover harmful side effects that adequate testing would have found, for failing to test the drug under market conditions, and for failing to inform the public of the drug's dangers.
75.
Brochu v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp., 642 F.2d 652, 656 (1st Cir. 1981). Strict liability law allows makers to sell dangerous products that are useful to society, provided the makers adequately warn of the dangers and adequately instruct on the safe use of the products.
LaBelle v. McCauley Industrial Corp., 649 F.2d 46, 49 (1st Cir.), reh'g denied (1981). Plaintiffs were compensated for damage to their airplane because the means for warning of changes in maintenance procedures were too indirect.
79.
Pan-Alaska Fisheries, Inc. v. Marine Construction & Design Co., 565 F.2d 1129, 1137 (9th Cir. 1977), reh'g denied (1978).
80.
Andrulonis v. United States, 924 F.2d 1210, 1221 (2d Cir. 1991). A manufacturer “may incur liability for failing to warn of newly discovered dangers in the use of a product that come to his [sic] attention after manufacture or sale. These dangers may be discovered through advancements in the state of the art, with which the manufacturer is expected to stay abreast, or through being made aware of later accidents involving dangers in the product, of which warnings should be given to users.”
81.
MaddenM. S., Products Liability, 1, § 10.12, West Publishing Co., St. Paul, Minnesota, p. 443, 1988.
82.
ZaharoffH. G.Expert Systems: Strategies for Minimizing Liability, The Computer Lawyer, 6, p. 32, 1989.
