Gray v. Badger Mining Corp.

Supreme Court of Minnesota · Torts

Tortsproducts liabilitynegligencefailure to warnduty to warnadequate warningsilicasilicosis

Facts

Gray worked for Smith Foundry for decades and alleged that repeated exposure to silica dust there caused silicosis. There was evidence that Badger Mining supplied silica sand to Smith Foundry before 1981 and again beginning in 1992, delivering it in bulk by pneumatic trucks. Gray produced evidence that Badger Mining knew foundry use created hazardous sub-micron dust and that disposable respirators were ineffective for extended protection, yet its 1992 MSDS warned generally about silicosis and instructed purchasers to use NIOSH- or MSHA-approved dust respirators. The parties disputed both whether Smith Foundry and Gray were sufficiently knowledgeable about silica hazards and whether Badger Mining's warnings and instructions to Smith Foundry were adequate.

Issue

Whether Badger Mining was entitled to summary judgment on Gray's negligence-based failure-to-warn claim because, as a bulk supplier of silica to a sophisticated purchaser, it had no duty to warn Gray or had discharged any duty by warning Smith Foundry. Also, whether the raw material/component part supplier defense barred the claim as a matter of law.

Rule

A supplier has a duty to warn end users of a dangerous product when injury from its use is reasonably foreseeable, and that duty includes giving adequate instructions for safe use. Under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 388, liability may exist if the supplier knows or should know the product is dangerous, has no reason to believe users will realize the danger, and fails to exercise reasonable care to inform them. Sophisticated user, sophisticated intermediary, and bulk supplier theories do not eliminate the duty categorically; they concern whether the supplier reasonably discharged it, and summary judgment is improper where genuine fact issues exist as to the user or intermediary's knowledge, the adequacy of warnings, or reliance on the supplier's information.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Prairie Crest Minerals sells blasting grit in bulk by tanker truck to Riverbend Rail Works in Duluth, Minnesota. Prairie Crest knows that, during Riverbend's cleaning process, the grit fractures into respirable particles and that the paper dust masks commonly used on the line do not seal well enough for extended use, but its data sheet only warns generally of lung disease and instructs users to wear "approved dust respirators."

A Riverbend employee develops lung disease and sues Prairie Crest for negligent failure to warn. Riverbend presents some evidence that it knew dust was harmful, but no conclusive evidence that it knew the paper masks were ineffective. What is the strongest argument against summary judgment for Prairie Crest?

Explanation. Under the majority rule, a supplier has a duty to warn and to provide adequate instructions when injury from use is reasonably foreseeable. Sophisticated intermediary and bulk supplier theories do not create an automatic no-duty rule; they go to whether the supplier reasonably discharged its duty. Where the supplier had special knowledge of a specific hazard or protective-equipment limitation not clearly conveyed to the employer, adequacy is a jury question and summary judgment is improper.