Ragans v. Miriam Collins-Palm Beach Laboratories

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District · 1996 · Torts

TortsProducts liabilityFailure to warnSummary judgmentproducts liabilityfailure to warnwarning adequacysummary judgment

Facts

Mable Ragans, a professional hairstylist, was injured while using a hair permanent kit manufactured by the defendant. The kit included a clear bottle of wave lotion, an opaque white bottle of neutralizer, and an activator tube that stated on its back, "ADD TO CLEAR BOTTLE ONLY," while the instruction leaflet said that adding the activator "to other than wave lotion can cause serious injury." Ragans had read the warnings but understood them to mean injury to the customer’s hair or scalp, not an explosive reaction. When she accidentally poured a few drops of activator into the neutralizer bottle, the mixture reacted explosively, spraying her face and causing chemical burns and continuing sensitivity to sunlight.

Issue

Whether the manufacturer’s warning about adding the activator only to the wave lotion was so adequate as a matter of law that summary judgment was proper, or whether the adequacy of that warning presented a factual question for the jury.

Rule

In a products liability case, the adequacy of a warning is ordinarily a question for the jury. A court may resolve the issue as a matter of law only when the warning is accurate, clear, and unambiguous.

🔒

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.

In Orlando, Denise Porter used a tile-restoration kit made by Suncoast Surface Labs. One bottle said, "POUR INTO GREEN JAR ONLY," and the instruction sheet added that pouring the contents into any other container "can cause serious injury." Denise mistakenly poured it into a second bottle in the kit, causing a sudden chemical spray that burned her eyes and cheeks.

If Denise sues for failure to warn and the manufacturer moves for summary judgment arguing the warning was adequate as a matter of law, how should the court rule?

Explanation. The governing rule is that warning adequacy is ordinarily a jury question. A judge may decide adequacy as a matter of law only if the warning is accurate, clear, and unambiguous. A direction telling the user where to pour a chemical, coupled with a general statement that misuse can cause serious injury, does not necessarily clearly warn of the dangerous consequences of the improper mixing. Under that rule, summary judgment should be denied because a fact question remains.