## Facts

- Mildredge T. Broussard, a carpenter’s helper employed by Crain Brothers Construction Co., worked at a Continental Oil Co. (Conoco) natural-gas plant in Grand Chenier, Louisiana.
- Broussard and a coworker worked near the end of a natural-gas vent line while constructing an enclosure.
- They could hear and smell gas venting; the coworker twice asked Conoco’s relief foreman to shut off the gas, and the request was refused because shutting it off would require shutting down the plant.
- Broussard used a Black & Decker electric hand drill near the gas; the drill’s motor emitted sparks that ignited the gas, causing an explosion that severely burned Broussard.
- Evidence showed this type of drill normally emitted sparks and was not treated at trial as defectively designed on that basis.
- Black & Decker placed in each drill box an owner’s manual warning not to operate portable electric tools in gaseous or explosive atmospheres because motors normally spark and may ignite fumes.
- The drill itself carried a general label: “CAUTION: For Safe Operation See Owner’s Manual.”
- Broussard argued the specific explosive-atmosphere warning had to be affixed to the drill (or conveyed by symbols) and that the label directing users to the manual was inadequate.
- A jury returned a verdict for Black & Decker and its insurer, rejecting Broussard’s failure-to-warn claim; Broussard appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the jury committed manifest error by finding Black & Decker not at fault for failing to provide an adequate warning about using the drill near vaporous gas.
2. Whether the trial court erred by instructing the jury using negligence concepts in a products-liability failure-to-warn case.
3. Whether the trial court erred by submitting to the jury questions of Conoco’s negligence and Broussard’s negligence.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed the judgment for Black & Decker and its insurer.
- The court held there was no manifest error in the jury’s finding that Black & Decker’s warnings were adequate.
- The court found no reversible error in the negligence-based jury instructions in the context of the failure-to-warn claim.
- The court found no error in submitting Conoco’s and Broussard’s negligence to the jury given the evidence bearing on causation and fault.

## Legal Principles

- Adequacy of a product warning is a fact question subject to deferential manifest-error review on appeal.
- A manufacturer may satisfy a duty to warn of a non-obvious danger by providing a clear, specific warning in an owner’s manual when the product directs users to consult the manual.
- A warning need not be placed directly on the product where practical limits and the number of potential warnings support use of a manual, and where placing many warnings on the product risks reducing their effect.
- Proposed pictorial warning symbols may be rejected as inadequate where they are not standardized and may not be understood by ordinary users.
- It is permissible to submit the negligence of other actors and the plaintiff to the jury when supported by evidence and relevant to causation and allocation of fault.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a defense verdict in a failure-to-warn products-liability case, concluding the jury could reasonably find that a specific warning in the owner’s manual, coupled with a label instructing users to consult the manual, adequately warned against operating an electric drill in a gaseous or explosive atmosphere, and that the challenged jury instructions and fault submissions were not reversible error.


Broussard v. Continental Oil Co., 433 So. 2d 354 (La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983)