Cyrus Dugger
CJ&D: WARNING LABELS SAVE LIVES
From the Center for Justice & Democracy:
WARNING LABELS SAVE LIVES On November 20, 2006, an investigative news story in the Baltimore Sun uncovered a disturbing development: pressure brought on a scientist at the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to remove an advisory bulletin warning auto mechanics about lethal asbestos in brakes. The pressure came from the former head of OSHA, an individual with ties to the auto industry.Indeed, some industries hate warning labels. And some federal agencies, which have ties to the very industries they should be regulating, are loathe to order them, despite how many lives could be saved. Often, it is only through lawsuits brought by injured consumers that manufacturers have been forced to place critical warning labels on dangerous products, saving millions of lives and preventing innumerable injuries.
Among 40 years of cases cited in Center for Justice & Democracy report, Lifesavers: CJ&D’s Guide to Lawsuits that Protect Us All (http://www.centerjd.org/free/Lifesavers.pdf) - many of which concern children who were injured or killed due to lack of warning labels - are:
* On June 24, 1993, five-year-old Valerie Lakey, playing in a recreation club’s wading pool became lodged in a drain cover opening. The suction pulled out almost 80 percent of her small intestine and about 70 percent of her large intestine. The pool equipment manufacturer knew of at least 13 similar injuries but failed to put warnings on its covers until mid-1987. After the case was filed, the company changed its warnings and instructions regarding the safe use of its drain covers. The case later caused an industry-wide recall of pool drain covers.
* In 1985, 80-year-old Mae Roberts was legally blinded in her left eye when a twist-off aluminum cap blew off a plastic two-liter Diet 7-Up bottle and struck her in the eye. Lawsuit documents revealed that the company knew of the problem of exploding bottle caps and of numerous resulting eye injuries yet failed to act. As a result of lawsuits, the company converted over to the plastic pre-formed caps that greatly reduced the likelihood of caps blowing off and added a specific warning on the bottles.
* In December 1998, 31-year-old Todd Weger, a career soldier and Gulf War veteran, collapsed on a treadmill at a local health club in Texas and suffered a massive stroke after periodically using a dietary supplement called Ultimate Orange. He had a substantial portion of his brain removed, leaving him permanently disabled. As part of the lawsuit settlement, the company agreed to change the label and promotional materials to reflect an appropriate warning of the potential dangers of heart attack and stroke.
* Four hundred lawsuits were brought against tool manufacturers by workers suffering from hand-arm vibration syndrome (HAVS) after use of chainsaws, jack-hammers and sanding and scraping tools, which caused neurological and vascular damage to the users’ hands. During discovery, evidence surfaced that the manufacturers had discouraged the use of warnings on their tools for nearly a decade. After the lawsuits, the American industry began putting warnings on their machines and one company developed a rubber shock absorber for the handle of some tools.
* When Antonio Benedi entered the hospital on February 10, 1993, he was in a coma, near death, and required an emergency liver transplant after having taken Extra-Strength Tylenol to treat flu symptoms. He normally drank several glasses of wine with dinner. When Benedi sued the manufacturer, McNeil, P.P.C., Inc., he discovered that since the late 1970s the company knew of the link between acetaminophen, alcohol and liver damage. Before the jury verdict, the FDA decided that all over-the-counter pain relievers containing acetaminophen would carry a warning about the risks of alcohol. The FDA announced the plan right after the verdict.
* James Saupitty, a 22-year-old civilian employee of the United States at Fort Sill, Oklahoma, suffered an arm injury and finger amputation after being thrown from a lawn mower while cutting the grass on the Fort Sill grounds. The gears had locked. Evidence at trial showed that Yazoo knew of prior injuries but refused to retrofit, repair or warn about the mower’s dangerous design. After the verdict, the company recalled and retrofitted the mowers.
* On April 2, 1983, Betty O’Gilvie died from toxic shock syndrome after using Playtex super-absorbent tampons. Although the package warning complied with the minimum FDA standard, experts testified that mere compliance was inadequate under the circumstances. Following the verdict, Playtex took the product off the market and modified the TSS warning statement on its tampon packaging.
* Six-year-old Mary Ann Incollingo died from aplastic anemia after taking Chloromycetin over a one-year period to treat the various illnesses she suffered. The manufacturers’ warnings to doctors were inadequate. Since this case, chloramphenicol has carried on its label the warning that it should be the drug of choice only for such virulent but rare diseases as typhoid and Rocky Mountain spotted fever.
* On May 14, 1980, Georgia Huchingson underwent surgery at a hospital in Little Rock, Arkansas. An Airco ventilator, which was set up incorrectly to assist her breathing, led to lung and brain damage. After the verdict was upheld on appeal, Airco issued an FDA-sponsored medical device alert, warning doctors and hospitals nationwide of the potential for product misuse.
* In the 1980s, Cynthia Littlejohn suffered third degree burns over 25 percent of her body when her Bic lighter ignited in her left-front shirt pocket. After her lawsuit, Bic recalled 12 million defective lighters and changed the lighter’s design. After the findings of a Consumer Product Safety Commission study were released, Bic said it would put warning labels on every new lighter until it designed one that was childproof.
* In the late 1960s, the above-ground pool industry received numerous reports of life-threatening injuries resulting from dives into its swimming pools. On June 3, 1978, 27-year-old Joe Corbin became quadriplegic after diving into and hitting his head on the bottom of an above-ground Coleco swimming pool. Following this and other cases, much more stringent warning signs were placed around such pools along with distribution of detailed consumer information about this hazard.
* In November 1972, Clyne Robinson, his wife, Edna Faye, and their two young children died from carbon monoxide poisoning caused by burning of charcoal briquettes indoors. After this and other lawsuits following deaths and injuries, charcoal briquette manufacturers placed prominent warnings on the charcoal bags about the deadly hazards of using charcoal without ventilation.
* On August 19, 1970, two-year-old Susan Bowen sustained severe burns to her esophagus, necessitating over 240 surgical procedures, after she ingested some drops of Liquid Plum’r. The Bowen case, together with over 20 similar lawsuits filed on behalf of young children, caused the Clorox Company to change Liquid Plum’r’s formula and redesign its container, and led government agencies to improve child restraint closure and labeling standards.
* On December 8, 1969, four-year-old Lee Ann Gryc was severely burned when her cotton flannelette pajama top ignited as she leaned over an electric stove. Evidence showed that the flannelette manufacturer knew as early as 1956 that the fabric was flammable and posed a serious threat. At trial, the company argued that it could not warn consumers about the material’s flammability because such a warning would “stigmatize” its product and hurt sales. After this case, the product was removed from the market.
* In November 1959, a 14-month old baby died from ingesting Old English Red Oil Furniture Polish. At trial, the child’s mother testified that the label, which said that the product might be harmful to children, was placed eight lines under the directions, in brown ink and measured only 1/32 of an inch in height. Moreover, experts testified that the warning was misleading because it did not indicate that ingestion would cause death. After trial, the product’s warning label was changed to read: “DANGER. HARMFUL OR FATAL IF SWALLOWED. COMBUSTIBLE. KEEP OUT OF REACH OF CHILDREN. SAFETY CAP.” (link)
Cyrus Dugger: Author Bio | Other Posts
Posted at 5:00 PM, Dec 01, 2006 in
Permalink | Email to Friend | Comments (6)






Comments
Your list is good evidence that lawsuits cause warning labels.
Explain better how warning labels save lives. Where the data to support that assertion?
For example, are Europeans less safe than Americans using the same products?
Posted by: Supremacy Claus | December 2, 2006 3:41 PM
Here's an easy one. If not for the warning labels, it's very probable that someone who doesn't understand chemistry would mix bleach and ammonia to clean something.
I don't understand what the big deal about including warning labels is. It's not like the .0001 cents in ink will run up manufacturing costs. Considering how well the tobacco industry is doing, warning labels don't kill sales, either.
If I made a product that I knew could be dangerous, I'd much rather put the label on the product than not. Sure, it might turn a few customers off, but it could also save a few customers' lives. I'd sleep better at night, and my legal department would, too.
This case is particularly puzzling to me. I've worked with a lot of "blue collar" types, and I've never known a one of them to care what OSHA has to say, or to read the MSDS sheets for the deadly chemicals they work with.
Posted by: Justinian Lane | December 2, 2006 5:36 PM
Noticeably missing from all those anecdotes is the slightest bit of evidence that (as your subject line implies) "Warning labels save lives."
Indeed, several of those anecdotes involve cases where warning labels were already in place, demonstrating the exact opposite of the point you're trying to make: that the only thing the warning label issue does is provide another way for trial lawyers to make money, by creating yet another phony issue to confuse juries in tort cases. If there's a warning label, trial lawyers simply argue that the warning label was inadequate.
Posted by: David M. Nieporent | December 3, 2006 5:39 PM
"If there's a warning label, trial lawyers simply argue that the warning label was inadequate."
So obviously, the much better solution is to not put warning labels on the products at all.
Seriously, though... are you arguing that warning labels shouldn't be put on products, or that plaintiffs shouldn't be able to sue if a warning label was on the product, or?
Posted by: Justinian Lane | December 4, 2006 9:01 AM
Justinian, on the contrary, I strongly support warning labels. I think they belong on products, and (since I do) I think their presence ought to immunize manufacturers (or service providers, as the case may be) from injuries related to the warnings.
But I don't think there's any evidence that they save many lives. I mean, look at the examples cited above. Presumably Cyrus selected examples he thought would best make his case -- and yet look how weak they are. Just to pick a few:
* Valerie Lakey wasn't hurt because of the lack of a warning label; the municipality knew of the safety issue already.
* Mae Roberts' injury had nothing to do with warning labels; that's a product design issue.
* James Saupitty's injury also appears to be a product design issue.
* Cynthia Littlejohn's injury is also a product design issue.
Other examples above are people who act like idiots. People who act like idiots -- such as those who let their 4-year old children play on hot stoves, or people who leave household chemicals around for their 2-year old kids or 14-month old babies to drink -- don't pay attention to warning labels, so what's the point? Indeed, in the last case, there was a warning label! She just ignored it!
If you're going to require warning labels, then people should be charged with abiding by them; they shouldn't be allowed to argue that the warnings weren't good enough.
But to make warning labels effective, they have to be limited to the nonabsurd, or nobody will look at them. So they shouldn't be required for obvious dangers -- like not diving into a pool that's too shallow. Most people can handle the concept of gravity and hard surfaces not mixing.
Posted by: David M. Nieporent | December 7, 2006 7:47 AM
David, thanks for your detailed response.
I certainly agree with you that people are idiots. Here's an excerpt of a post of mine from Corpreform:
"Second, I want to talk about Stella and her negligence. Could she have been more careful? Yes. Does that relieve McDonald's of responsibility? No. Why not? Because, quite frankly, the world is full of idiots. They cut us off in traffic. They can't figure out how to work their digital cable. They're afraid of "the Internets," as if there's more than one. They buy the herbal remedies spammers sell. They email their credit card numbers and social security numbers to complete strangers. Hell, 1,658,853 idiots voted to re-elect Rick "I'll sue you for making my wife fat" Santorum. I'm willing to bet money that by the end of the day, you'll run across an idiot.
We all know the world is full of idiots. So do manufacturers and vendors – so they have a responsibility to try and make their products at least somewhat idiot-proof. In the law, the concept is referred to as foreseeability. If it's reasonably forseeable that some idiot will injure him or herself in a certain way, the manufacturer should either warn the idiot or try and prevent the idiot from causing the injury in the first place. Maybe it means putting stupid warning labels on products. Or disclaimers on tv shows/commercials. Or the little warning on your dash to use the brake before you move the car out of park. Much has been said about the lack of an appropriate warning label on Stella's coffee cup. Look at that last sentence. I called it a coffee cup. In actuality, it was a Styrofoam cup with golden arches all over it. The cup didn't specifically say coffee. Without some kind of a warning on it that the cup in fact contains hot liquid, some idiot might think the cup is full of soda, or water, or some other beverage that isn't hot. In Stella's case, perhaps the label should have said, "WARNING. This product is so ridiculously hot that if you spill it on yourself, portions of your flesh will melt. If you try and gulp this coffee down, you'll lose your sense of taste and need throat surgery. So for God's sake, PLEASE be careful with this cup of dangerously hot liquid." Once more, in case I wasn't clear – ANY DRINK THAT CAUSES THIRD DEGREE BURNS IS TOO HOT TO DRINK. And anyone who doesn't think McDonald's should have at least paid for the woman's medical bills is an idiot."
I agree with you that people should follow their warning labels, and if they disregard them, they do so at their own peril. But certainly, there are instances when a warning label could be inadequate. 5 point yellow font on a white background, for example, wouldn't be adequate. I could list many other reasons a label could be inadequate, but that would be pointless; you're certainly not so unreasonable as to claim EVERY label is adequate.
So how do we remedy the situation? We can't try and come up with a law that precisely defines an adequate warning label. Such a law would have to be hundreds of pages, and would still end up being incomplete or ambiguous. So I believe the solution is to let juries decide on a case-by-case basis whether the warning label was adequate or not. Will juries always get it right? Of course not, they're made of ordinary men and women. Or is there another way besides eliminating an entire class of lawsuits to solve the problem? I'm definitely open to suggestions, and I'm the first to admit the current system is flawed.
Posted by: Justinian Lane | December 8, 2006 5:45 PM