Fryer v. Kranz

616 N.W.2d 102 (2000)

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 employed a number of workers, including P, to use muriatic acid to remove grout and residue from ceramic tile floors. Muriatic acid, also called hydrochloric acid, is a strong, highly corrosive chemical. The product label warned that for proper use, the acid should be diluted, the vapors are harmful when the acid is used improperly, and the product is for exterior use only. These warnings were not readable when P used the chemical because the label was covered with 'cement stuff.' For training, D poured the undiluted acid on the floor, saying, 'This is how we use it.' D did not warn P about any dangers, although he did say the acid is 'corrosive and smells really bad,' and 'try not to breathe it.' P was told to wear protective gloves. Also, a small oscillating fan was positioned nearby to circulate the air, with more fans set up in the doorways to ventilate the building. P regularly cleaned with the acid. It produced a 'green cloud' when poured on the floor. P regularly cleaned with the acid. It produced a 'green cloud' when poured on the floor. P felt nauseated, lightheaded, and she coughed when she breathed it. P complained but D said she needed to take a break to get some air. Eventually, P was admitted to the hospital, where she remained for four days. She continues to suffer health problems. P sued D seeking damages for D's intentional conduct. D filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that Fryer’s claim was required to be resolved through a workers’ compensation process. The trial court denied the motion. D appealed.