## Facts

- A 14-month-old child ingested “Old English Red Oil Furniture Polish,” a bright red petroleum distillate that can cause fatal hydrocarbon (chemical) pneumonia if swallowed or aspirated.
- The child’s mother purchased the polish, used it in the home, and placed the bottle on a bureau she believed was out of the child’s reach.
- The mother briefly left the room; the child pulled a cloth from the bureau into the crib, causing the bottle to fall into the crib.
- The child removed the cap, ingested some polish, was hospitalized the same day, and died two days later from hydrocarbon pneumonia.
- The label prominently warned “CAUTION COMBUSTIBLE,” while the ingestion warning appeared below directions in smaller, less conspicuous print; the mother read the combustibility warning but did not read the ingestion warning and did not know ingestion could be lethal.
- Evidence showed the manufacturers knew of multiple prior incidents of children ingesting the same product and suffering chemical pneumonia and death.
- A jury found for the beneficiaries in a wrongful-death action but excluded the mother from sharing in the recovery; the trial court denied defendants’ motions for directed verdict, judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and new trial.

## Issues

1. Whether manufacturers of a household product containing a petroleum distillate owed a duty to warn of the grave risk of death to children from ingestion where such exposure in the home was foreseeable.
2. Whether the label warning was adequate as a matter of law, given the relative prominence of the combustibility warning and the limited, less conspicuous ingestion warning.
3. Whether the mother’s supervision and failure to read the ingestion warning constituted the sole proximate cause, relieving defendants of liability.
4. Whether evidence of prior similar accidents involving the same product was admissible to prove knowledge, foreseeability, and the adequacy of the warning.
5. Whether the evidence was sufficient to submit the case to the jury and sustain the verdict.

## Decision

- The Fourth Circuit affirmed the judgment for plaintiffs.
- The case was properly submitted to the jury, and the evidence supported a finding that defendants failed to provide an adequate warning of a foreseeable, lethal ingestion risk to children.
- The jury could reasonably find the warning’s placement and emphasis inadequate in light of the known severity and likelihood of harm.
- The mother’s conduct did not, as a matter of law, constitute the sole proximate cause; the jury could find defendants’ inadequate warning was also a proximate cause.
- Evidence of prior similar ingestion incidents was properly admitted for limited purposes, including showing defendants’ knowledge and the foreseeability of child ingestion in home use.

## Legal Principles

- A manufacturer must warn of latent dangers associated with intended or reasonably foreseeable use (including foreseeable misuse) when marketing a product for household settings where children may be exposed.
- The adequacy of a warning depends not only on content but also on prominence and presentation; a warning may be found inadequate if it is not reasonably likely to attract attention and convey the seriousness of the risk.
- When a product poses a severe risk in small quantities to children, the warning must reasonably communicate the gravity of that risk to ordinary consumers.
- Evidence of prior similar accidents may be admissible to show a defendant’s knowledge of a danger, the foreseeability of harm, and the reasonableness of precautions such as warnings, if the incidents are sufficiently similar.
- Questions of proximate cause and whether third-party negligence is superseding are generally for the jury where reasonable factfinders could differ.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a jury verdict that manufacturers of a household furniture polish could be liable for failure to provide a sufficiently prominent and informative warning about a known, potentially lethal ingestion hazard to children, and it approved admitting prior similar accidents to establish knowledge and foreseeability while leaving causation and the effect of parental negligence to the jury.


Spruill v. Boyle-Midway, Inc., 308 F.2d 79 (4th Cir. 1962)