## Facts

- Raymond Gomez worked for over six years as an abrasive blaster in the oil industry, where blasting generated respirable silica dust from flint containing silicon dioxide.
- Gomez wore an air-supplied hood while blasting but used a disposable paper mask during sweeping and cleanup, when dust exposure remained substantial.
- Gomez developed subacute silicosis, a progressive lung-scarring disease, with evidence of reduced life expectancy.
- Humble Sand & Gravel, Inc. supplied silica flint to industrial customers (employers), in bulk and 100-pound bags, not directly to individual workers.
- Humble’s bag label warned: “WARNING! MAY BE INJURIOUS TO HEALTH IF PROPER PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT IS NOT USED.”
- Gomez saw the warning, asked his foreman what “proper protective equipment” meant, and was told his hood and paper mask were sufficient.
- Evidence indicated that by the 1980s the silica hazard and the need for air-supplied respiratory protection were well known to industry participants, regulators, and safety professionals, while workers were often uninformed and employers inconsistently enforced protections.
- Gomez sued multiple defendants; all but Humble settled. A jury found Humble liable for failure to warn under products-liability and negligence theories and awarded about $2 million.
- The court of appeals affirmed; the Texas Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial.

## Issues

1. Whether a supplier of silica flint used in abrasive blasting owes a duty to warn its customers’ employees directly about the severity of silica risks and the need for air-supplied protective hoods, when the employer-customers are aware of those dangers.
2. Under what circumstances a supplier may rely on an intermediary employer to convey warnings to employees, including whether supplier warnings would, as a general matter, effectively reach and protect blasting workers.
3. Whether evidentiary exclusions prevented proper consideration of duty (including industry-wide feasibility and effectiveness of warnings) and causation (including attribution among multiple suppliers).

## Decision

- The Texas Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals’ judgment and remanded for a new trial.
- The Court did not decide, on the existing record, whether similarly situated flint suppliers have a general duty to warn customers’ employees directly.
- The Court held the record lacked evidence needed to evaluate whether supplier-provided warnings could generally and effectively reach employees in abrasive blasting operations and improve safety.
- The Court concluded that evidence relevant to the duty analysis and to causation had been improperly excluded, requiring retrial on a more complete record.

## Legal Principles

- Product suppliers generally must warn expected users of foreseeable risks that render a product unreasonably dangerous.
- A supplier generally has no duty to warn of risks that are common knowledge in the relevant community.
- In some settings, a supplier may rely on a knowledgeable intermediary to warn ultimate users, but the reasonableness of that reliance depends on whether the intermediary is positioned and expected to convey the warning and protect users.
- Whether to impose a duty on suppliers in an industrial setting requires an assessment framed at the class level (all similarly situated suppliers), and may depend on evidence about the feasibility and effectiveness of warnings in that setting.
- Excluding evidence bearing on industry practices, warning effectiveness, and causal attribution can prevent proper resolution of duty and causation and justify a new trial.

## Conclusion

The Texas Supreme Court set aside the plaintiff’s verdict and ordered a new trial because the record was insufficient to determine the existence and scope of any supplier duty to warn customers’ employees in abrasive blasting, and because evidence bearing on industry-wide warning effectiveness and causation was improperly excluded.


Humble Sand & Gravel, Inc. v. Gomez, 146 S.W.3d 170 (Tex. 2004)