Michigan Supreme Court: No
Duty to Warn for Hair Oil That Caused Baby's Death
Gongwer News
Service, July 19, 2006
The manufacturer of a hair oil product had no duty to warn of its
toxicity, which caused the agonizing death of a baby who drank it, the
Supreme Court ruled in a 5-2 decision released Wednesday. The decision
reversed the Court of Appeals, which concluded questions such as whether a
warning was required and whether the manufacturer breached an implied
warranty should have been left to the jury.
The suit was brought by the mother of an 11-month-old baby who died a
month after ingesting Wonder 8 Hair Oil, which clogged his lungs. She was
a first-time user of the product - marketed to African-Americans as
containing eight natural oils that served as a moisturizer and provides
body for hair. The bottle was not labeled as toxic and did not contain a
warning that it should be kept out of reach of children or would be fatal
if swallowed.
Justice Maura Corrigan, writing for the majority, said the risks posed by
the product were obvious and the Wayne Circuit Court was correct in
dismissing the suit (Green v. A.P. Products, SC docket No. 127718).
"We conclude that the statute imposes a duty to warn that extends only to
material risks not obvious to a reasonably prudent product user, and to
material risks that are not, or should not be, a matter of common
knowledge to persons in the same or a similar position as the person who
suffered the injury in question," she wrote. "Because the material risk
associated with ingesting and inhaling Wonder 8 Hair Oil, as occurred
here, would have been obvious to a reasonably prudent product user, the
failure to warn against the risk is not actionable.
The opinion was signed by Chief Justice Clifford Taylor and Justices
Robert Young Jr., Stephen Markman and Elizabeth Weaver (who departed only
from the majority's response to a dissent argument).
Justice Marilyn Kelly, in one dissent, said a jury should have been
allowed to decide whether the material risk of death is open and obvious
to a reasonably prudent user.
And Justice Michael Cavanagh said the majority erred in concluding that
the obviousness of illness from ingesting or inhaling the hair oil product
makes it unnecessary to warn of the other risks, such as death, that may
not be obvious.
"Under today's opinion, manufacturers need not alert consumers of hidden
risks or allow consumers to assess those risks and make informed choices.
Rather, knowledge of one material risk is knowledge of all," he said.
