## Facts

- Robert E. Rhodes’s wife bought an automobile battery about fifteen months before the incident; it was installed at a service station.
- The battery was manufactured by Johnson Controls, Inc. and sold under the Interstate Battery System of America, Inc. brand name.
- The battery’s vent caps had an embossed warning stating, in substance, that batteries produce explosive gases and to keep sparks, flame, and cigarettes away; it also warned about sulfuric acid and advised eye protection.
- After spending several hours at a tavern, Rhodes returned to his car and found the battery dead.
- To check the battery, Rhodes struck a match and began loosening the vent caps; the battery exploded when the flame was roughly 12–15 inches away, spraying sulfuric acid into his face and eyes.
- Rhodes admitted he had not read the warning and claimed he had never noticed warning labels on car batteries; he testified he would be more likely to read a warning only if it was extremely prominent.
- Rhodes alleged the warning method was inadequate and suggested more conspicuous or different warning methods.

## Issues

1. Whether warning adequacy and causation (including the effect of Rhodes’s failure to read the warning) could be decided on summary judgment under Georgia law.
2. Whether, under Georgia law, a seller/distributor that markets a product under its own trade name may be subject to strict liability for inadequate warnings.
3. Whether Rhodes’s conduct constituted contributory negligence or assumption of risk barring recovery as a matter of law.

## Decision

- The Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held that, on this record, warning adequacy and causation presented jury questions and were not properly resolved as a matter of law.
- The court held that Georgia strict products liability could apply to a seller/distributor that sold the product under its own trade name; dismissal of the strict liability claim against Interstate on the ground it was merely a distributor was error.
- The court held that plaintiff fault defenses (contributory negligence/assumption of risk) were not “plain, palpable, and undisputed” on this record and therefore were for the jury.

## Legal Principles

- Under Georgia law, the adequacy of a product warning is usually a jury question; summary judgment is proper only when the warning is so clear and effective that reasonable jurors could not differ and there is no evidence a different warning would have prevented the injury.
- A plaintiff’s failure to read a warning does not automatically defeat causation; causation may be shown circumstantially by evidence that a more prominent or effective warning would likely have been noticed and changed conduct.
- Issues of contributory negligence and assumption of risk are ordinarily for the jury unless the evidence conclusively establishes the plaintiff’s knowledge and unreasonable conduct.
- Under Georgia strict liability principles, an entity that places a product into commerce under its own trade name may be treated as a “manufacturer” for strict liability purposes, including for failure-to-warn claims.

## Conclusion

The Eleventh Circuit required a trial because the record permitted competing inferences about the warning’s effectiveness, whether a more prominent warning would have been heeded, and the extent of Rhodes’s fault; it also permitted strict liability claims against a private-label seller that marketed the battery as its own under Georgia law.


Rhodes v. Interstate Battery Sys. of Am., Inc., 722 F.2d 1517 (11th Cir. 1984)