Jackson v. Coast Paint And Lacquer Company

499 F.2d 809 (9th Cir. 1974)

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

P was sent by his employer to paint the inside of the tank cars with a paint called Copon EA9. It is an epoxy paint which is highly flammable. While P was spray painting the inside of one of the tanks a fire occurred and he was very severely burned. The fuel of the fire consisted of the paint fumes which had accumulated in the tank. The cause of ignition is uncertain and was a disputed issue at trial. There was some evidence that it was caused by breakage of a light bulb used by plaintiff in the tank. There was other evidence, mainly expert testimony including an experiment-demonstration, to the effect that the fire could have been touched off by static electricity, perhaps generated by the friction of the rubber soles of P's shoes on the tank floor. This is the theory favored by P. The label on the paint contains a warning which first refers to the toxicity of the paint if ingested, and then states: 'Keep away from heat, sparks, and open flame. USE WITH ADEQUATE VENTILATION. Avoid prolonged contact with skin and breathing of spray mist. Close container after each use. KEEP OUT OF REACH OF CHILDREN.' P understood the warning regarding adequate ventilation to refer only to the danger of breathing toxic vapors. While painting P used a tube and mask which enabled him to breathe fresh air from outside the tank. P had been unaware of the possibility that flammable vapors permitted to accumulate in a closed, inadequately ventilated area could be touched off by a spark resulting in a fire or explosion. There was, however, other evidence that some persons in P's company were aware that such a danger existed. D got the verdict and P appealed contending that the instructions given to the jury failed to state the law correctly.