## Facts

- An explosion and fire occurred at an ink manufacturing facility in Marlborough, Massachusetts, killing two workers and severely injuring others.
- The facility used highly flammable solvents, including toluene, acetone, and methanol, purchased in large quantities from chemical suppliers.
- One supplier delivered acetone and methanol in drums; both suppliers provided toluene delivered in bulk and stored in underground tanks.
- The employer was a sophisticated industrial purchaser: it routinely bought large quantities of solvents, conducted safety training and meetings, used interpreters to communicate safety instructions, and prepared safety information for its own customers.
- The suppliers periodically provided the employer with written safety information and material safety data sheets warning of flammability and static-ignition hazards.
- On the day of the incident, a worker transferred toluene into a rusty, unreconditioned drum without attaching grounding equipment; static discharge ignited solvent vapors.
- Evidence showed the employer permitted unsafe workplace practices, including use of unreconditioned drums and equipment that increased static risk.

## Issues

1. Whether bulk suppliers of hazardous chemicals must warn foreseeable end users directly, or may satisfy any duty to warn by warning a sophisticated intermediary employer.
2. Whether Massachusetts recognizes the bulk supplier doctrine as an affirmative defense in failure-to-warn products liability claims.
3. Whether the trial judge’s bulk supplier doctrine instructions improperly relieved the suppliers of a duty to warn, requiring a new trial.

## Decision

- The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts affirmed the defense verdicts and the denial of a new trial.
- The court recognized the bulk supplier doctrine as an affirmative defense in Massachusetts products liability actions.
- The court held the jury could find the suppliers discharged any duty to warn by giving adequate warnings to a sophisticated purchaser and reasonably relying on that purchaser to inform and protect employees.
- The court concluded the jury instructions, read as a whole, properly required findings on warning adequacy and the reasonableness of reliance, and were not prejudicial.

## Legal Principles

- A bulk supplier of hazardous materials may satisfy its duty to warn by providing adequate warnings to a knowledgeable, sophisticated intermediary reasonably positioned to understand and convey those warnings to end users.
- The bulk supplier doctrine operates as an affirmative defense; the supplier bears the burden to prove (1) adequate warnings to the intermediary and (2) reasonable reliance on the intermediary to transmit warnings and implement safety measures.
- The reasonableness of reliance depends on circumstances including the intermediary’s sophistication, its safety practices and role in employee training, and the supplier’s limited control over workplace conditions and specific product use.

## Conclusion

Massachusetts permits bulk suppliers to defend failure-to-warn claims by showing they adequately warned a sophisticated intermediary and reasonably relied on that intermediary to communicate risks and implement safety practices, and the jury instructions applying that doctrine supported affirmance of the defendants’ verdicts.


Hoffman v. Houghton Chem. Corp., 434 Mass. 624, 751 N.E.2d 848 (2001)