## Facts

- A consumer bought a quart of “Triox,” a weed killer manufactured by a chemical company and marketed for home use.
- Triox was approximately 50% sodium arsenite, an extremely toxic compound capable of entering the body through skin absorption or inhalation and capable of persisting in soil.
- The container label warned “DANGER—POISON” and cautioned against skin contact and the need to wash after use.
- The label did not warn that soil could remain dangerously contaminated after application or disposal, nor did it warn against disposing leftover solution onto the ground or against later skin contact with treated/contaminated areas.
- The consumer applied Triox to weeds and later poured/rinsed leftover solution onto a yard area.
- Five days later, unaware of the disposal location and the lingering hazard, she lay on the grass/soil to sunbathe and suffered arsenic poisoning consistent with sodium arsenite exposure.
- The manufacturer contended the injuries were attributable to allergy or hypersensitivity rather than toxic exposure.

## Issues

1. Whether the manufacturer negligently failed to provide adequate warnings about Triox’s non-obvious, post-use hazards, including lingering soil toxicity and dangers from later skin contact and disposal practices.
2. Whether the consumer’s injuries were proximately caused by the inadequate warnings, rather than by allergy, hypersensitivity, or other unrelated causes.
3. Whether the consumer’s disposal of leftover solution onto the ground and later contact with the contaminated area were foreseeable in light of the product’s marketing to ordinary household users.

## Decision

- The court found for the consumer in a bench-tried diversity action.
- The manufacturer was negligent for failing to give sufficient warnings about Triox’s lingering toxic contamination of soil and resulting danger from later skin contact.
- The failure to warn was a proximate cause of the consumer’s injuries.
- The court rejected the manufacturer’s contention that the consumer’s condition was merely allergic or idiosyncratic rather than toxic poisoning attributable to Triox exposure.

## Legal Principles

- A manufacturer with superior knowledge of a product’s dangerous characteristics must provide warnings adequate for ordinary consumers when the product is marketed for home use.
- Warnings are inadequate when they address only immediate, use-phase risks but omit known or knowable, non-obvious dangers that persist after use, including hazards arising from disposal and lingering environmental contamination.
- Foreseeable consumer conduct in using and disposing of a consumer product, and ordinary later contact with areas affected by the product, may place resulting injuries within the scope of risks the warning duty must address.
- Causation is satisfied where the absence of an adequate warning about a persistent hazard leads to an exposure that produces the complained-of injury.

## Conclusion

The court held the manufacturer liable for negligent failure to warn because, despite general poison warnings, the label did not alert ordinary home users to Triox’s long-lasting soil contamination and the foreseeable risk of serious injury from later skin contact after disposal or application, and that omission proximately caused the consumer’s arsenic poisoning.


Boyl v. Cal. Chem. Co., 221 F. Supp. 669 (D. Or. 1963)