7.2 - Warnings and Labels

Question 1

Warnings and Labels

Answer 1

-product warnings and labelling play a significant role in educating consumers about products
-the informed consumer can make choices to voluntarily assume the risks associated with a product
-manufacturers have a duty to warn consumers about products that could pose a danger to them and products that are defective
-this duty includes providing both adequate instructions about how to use the product and specific instructions on how to deal with an accidental injury

Question 2

Product Labels

Answer 2

-it can be difficult for the injured party to prove that the product was defective, whereas it may be relatively uncomplicated to establish that warnings were inadequate
-for warnings to be adequate, enough information must be passed on to allow the consumer to make an informed decision as to whether to accept the risk of using the product
-manufacturers of products that are considered inherently dangerous, such as guns, fireworks, gas furnaces, or dangerous chemicals, will be held to a higher standard of care to the consumer
-as the consumer’s potential severity of injuries increases, the manufacturer’s responsibility for taking precautions and providing warnings also increases
-if product is inherently dangerous, or contains a possible concealed trap, the manufacturer, or one who provides, supplies, or sells these products must provide adequate warning on the label, and the measure of adequacy depends on the degree of inherent danger found in the product
-for example, in ‘Lambert v. Lastoplex Chemicals Co.’ a highly flammable lacquer sealer was ignited by a pilot light in the room adjacent to where the lacquer was being applied. The user had turned off the furnace, but failed to extinguish the pilot light. There were 3 labels on the container that warned the user to keep substance away from open flames, but the manufacturer was found liable for damages caused by the fire and explosion because the labels failed to warn of the high inflammability of the products, and the words used were not likely to alert the reasonable user of the necessity to extinguish a pilot light in the next room
-a general warning is not adequate, the warning must specifically outline the dangers and consequences associated with the product, so this manufacturer was liable because it was not specific enough - another manufacturer of a similar product specifically instructed users to extinguish pilot lights for furnaces
-another example ‘Ruegger v. Shell Oil Company of Canada Ltd. and Farrow’ - weed killer to be “kept away from flowers” was not adequate

-the more dangerous the possible outcome of any misuse, the higher the onus on the manufacturer to provide the type of warning that will eliminate the danger
-even if conforming to industry norms, its warnings may be judged to be inadequate
-a defence may be available to the manufacturer when a product is not used in accordance with the instructions or warnings accompanying it
-generally there is no duty to warn of obvious dangers (ex, that a knife is sharp)
-when a consumer does not read instructions or warnings on a label, they may be found contributorily negligent - a defence to the manufacturer in that liability can be shared

Question 3

Sensitivity of User

Answer 3

-even though a product will not have a negative effect on the majority of the population, some individuals may react to it because of an allergy
-if one person is sensitive and has an allergic reaction, it does not necessarily mean that the product is defective and that the manufacturer will be found liable
-however, when many persons may be affected and the results are more serious, the manufacturer may have a duty to warn the consumer
-ex. a face cream that some are allergic to, however, if this cream is used to cure a disease of some kind, the risk in using it may be far more acceptable
-many drugs, because of their benefit to society, may be sold despite the risk, in such circumstances, however, the manufacturer must give adequate warning on the label