Ailiff v. Mar-Bal, Inc.

575 N.E.2d 228 (1990)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

D is in the business of manufacturing plastics. In order to achieve color precision, D's employees cleaned all of the company's equipment with methylene chloride. Methylene chloride, when breathed in high concentrations, can cause dizziness, lightheadedness, headaches, and, in high concentrations, coma and death. Methylene chloride breaks down to become carbon monoxide in the body, which bonds with hemoglobin going to the brain, causing brain injury. Methylene chloride can be absorbed through skin contact, causing a contact dermatitis. Ps were required to pour five to ten gallons of the chemical into the mixing bowl and turn the machine on for agitation from ten to forty-five minutes while remaining in the area. When finished, Ps had to reach into the mixer with a rag and scour the interior of the mixing bowl. Equipment was also cleaned by wiping the various pieces of machinery with rags, soaked with the chemical carried in buckets by Ps. Ps even used methylene chloride to wash the various resins off their own hands, several times a day. D was well acquainted with the dangers of methylene chloride including safety precautions to be taken. D did not follow the safety regulations. Ps suffered from a rash of ailments which could be traceable to the methylene chloride. Ps who questioned their foremen about the effect of methylene chloride on their hands (which turned cold and tingly) were told that the chemical was 'as safe as water.' Prior to inspection by fire or insurance agents, the plant would be scrupulously cleaned and all chemicals removed outside. Ps sued D for intentional torts. The trial court, construing all evidence in favor of Ps, found that branches one and three of the Van Fossen test were proved. However, the court found that there was no substantial evidence which indicated that D knew, to a substantial certainty, that such injuries would occur. D’s motion for a directed verdict was granted. Ps appealed.