Langness v. Fencil Urethane Systems, Inc.

667 N.W.2d 596 (2003)

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 sold RDO a Quonset for use as a potato warehouse. P assisted RDO in the construction of the building, including an air-exchange system. RDO hired D to apply an epoxy primer and spray urethane foam insulation in the interior of the warehouse. The epoxy came with a label that cautioned not to breathe vapor or spray mist of the primer and to wear approved respirators. The label also cautioned to use the primer only in a ventilated area. A material safety data sheet (MSDS) stated 'short-term inhalation toxicity is low. Breathing small amounts during normal handling is not likely to cause harmful effects. Breathing large amounts may be harmful. Symptoms are more likely seen at air concentrations exceeding the recommended exposure limits.' The MSDS for the epoxy primer also indicated 'vapors are heavier than air and may travel along the ground or may be moved by ventilation.' D began applying the epoxy primer while P and other workers were finishing work on the east end of the building, where the only openings to the building were located. P told D not to start spraying until P was done. D sprayed before P was finished. It was a 'good half hour' before P asked D to stop. The building was full of fog and visibility was about forty feet. D subsequently began spraying a second time while P and other workers were working inside the building and a blue fog again enveloped the workers. P became ill from exposure to the spray, gathered his equipment, left the building site, and returned about a week later to complete his work. Some of the workers had immediate reactions to the primer and were coughing and throwing up. P sued D and a number of other parties. P settled with everyone except D. During the trial, D cross-examined P about other lawsuits that P had filed. The court sustained P's objection to D's attempted introduction into evidence of the summons and complaint but allowed P to review the complaint and permitted D to question him about allegations regarding the liability of other parties. The court eventually precluded D from 'going through different paragraphs' in the complaint. The jury returned a special verdict for D and P appealed. P argues the trial court erred in admitting evidence about his settlements with the other defendants