## Facts

- Lawrence B. Gray worked at Smith Foundry from 1951 to 1998 and alleged he developed silicosis from inhaling silica dust generated during foundry operations.
- Smith Foundry used industrial silica sand supplied by Badger Mining Corporation to create molds for metal castings.
- Badger Mining supplied sand in bulk to Smith Foundry before 1981 and again beginning in 1992.
- Gray sued Badger Mining asserting negligence, strict liability for failure to warn, and breach of implied warranties.
- Gray offered evidence that Badger Mining had specialized knowledge about silica hazards in foundry conditions, including that sand could be pulverized into very fine dust during use.
- Before 1981, Badger Mining provided bulk sand without warnings; starting in 1992 it provided warnings through a Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS).
- Gray contended the warnings were inadequate, including in light of alleged knowledge that certain disposable respirators used at the foundry were ineffective for silica dust.
- Badger Mining argued it owed no duty to warn Gray because Smith Foundry was a sophisticated purchaser/intermediary, Badger Mining was a bulk supplier, and it was a raw material/component part supplier.

## Issues

1. Whether a supplier has a duty to warn users of foreseeable dangers associated with a product’s intended use.
2. Whether the learned intermediary doctrine should apply in an industrial employer–employee setting to relieve a supplier of a duty to warn employees.
3. Whether the sophisticated user/intermediary and bulk supplier theories eliminated the supplier’s duty to warn as a matter of law on summary judgment.
4. Whether the raw material/component part supplier defense bars a duty to warn about hazards arising from use of the raw material itself.

## Decision

- The Minnesota Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and remanded, reinstating the district court’s denial of Badger Mining’s motion for summary judgment.
- The court reaffirmed that product suppliers generally have a duty to warn users of foreseeable dangers associated with intended use.
- The court declined to extend the learned intermediary doctrine from pharmaceutical cases to the employer–employee relationship in this industrial context on the record presented.
- The court held genuine issues of material fact existed as to the sophistication/knowledge of Smith Foundry and Gray and the adequacy of Badger Mining’s warnings, making summary judgment improper.
- The court held the raw material/component part supplier defense does not bar a duty to warn about dangers associated with use of the raw material apart from any finished product.

## Legal Principles

- A product supplier has a duty to warn foreseeable users of foreseeable dangers associated with the product’s intended use.
- Minnesota applies Restatement (Second) of Torts § 388: a supplier may be liable when it knows or should know a product is dangerous for intended use, has no reason to believe users will realize the danger, and fails to exercise reasonable care to inform them.
- Adequacy of warnings (content, clarity, and means of communication) is commonly a fact question not suitable for resolution on summary judgment when the record is disputed.
- The learned intermediary doctrine is tied to the pharmaceutical/medical setting and is not automatically transferable to industrial supply relationships.
- Sophisticated purchaser/intermediary and bulk supplier defenses are fact-dependent; they require proof of the intermediary’s actual knowledge and that warnings to the intermediary were adequate.
- The raw material/component part supplier defense does not eliminate a duty to warn when the hazard arises from foreseeable use of the raw material itself, rather than from a downstream finished product’s design.

## Conclusion

The Minnesota Supreme Court held that a silica-sand supplier was not entitled to summary judgment on duty-to-warn claims where disputed facts existed about the employer’s and employee’s knowledge and the adequacy of warnings, refused to extend the learned intermediary doctrine to the industrial workplace on the record presented, and limited the raw material/component part defense so it does not bar warnings about dangers inherent in using the raw material.


Gray v. Badger Mining Corp., 676 N.W.2d 268 (Minn. 2004)