Facts
- Westinghouse manufactured oil-filled electrical transformers and sold them to Florida Power & Light (FPL).
- From 1967 to 1983, FPL sold worn-out transformers to Pepper’s Steel and Alloys (Pepper’s), a scrap metal salvage business.
- Willie J. High worked for Pepper’s (1965–1983) as a truck driver who loaded, transported, and handled many of the transformers.
- The transformers allegedly contained polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in the oil due to contamination in the manufacturing process.
- By 1972, Westinghouse had information indicating PCBs persisted in the environment and required care in handling, use, and disposal, with emerging tolerance limits.
- In 1976, Westinghouse notified utility customers that some transformers may be PCB-contaminated and recommended testing during repairs, maintenance, or disposal.
- The transformers sold as scrap allegedly bore no warnings to Pepper’s or its employees about PCB hazards.
- High alleged long-term exposure to PCB-contaminated oil caused serious physical and mental injuries and sued Westinghouse under strict liability and negligence (failure to warn).
- The trial court entered summary judgment for Westinghouse on both claims; the district court affirmed and certified a question of great public importance.
Issues
- Whether a transformer manufacturer may be held strictly liable to a scrap-yard employee injured by exposure occurring during dismantling of used transformers sold as scrap.
- Whether, after learning of PCB contamination and hazards, the manufacturer had a duty to act with reasonable care to provide timely warnings, and whether factual disputes barred summary judgment on negligence.
Decision
- The court approved summary judgment for Westinghouse on strict liability.
- The court quashed the decision in part as to negligence, holding that genuine issues of material fact existed on failure to warn.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings on the negligence claim.
Legal Principles
- Strict products liability may be unavailable where injury arises from dismantling worn-out products sold for scrap, rather than from ordinary use of a product placed into the stream of commerce.
- A manufacturer that learns its product has become dangerous due to contamination has a duty to act with reasonable care, which can include providing timely warnings.
- Whether warnings were required, timely, and adequate may present jury questions when the manufacturer’s knowledge, the foreseeability of downstream exposure during maintenance or disposal, and the scope of warnings are disputed.
- Summary judgment is improper where reasonable factfinders could differ on whether the manufacturer’s conduct satisfied the standard of reasonable care under the circumstances.
Conclusion
The court limited strict liability in the scrap-dismantling context but held that disputed facts regarding Westinghouse’s knowledge of PCB hazards and the timing and reach of its warnings required that High’s negligence failure-to-warn claim proceed beyond summary judgment.