The cases are therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.
Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, Eastland.
Rehearing Denied November 13, The issue in this strict liability case is whether the manufacturer and seller of paint has a duty to warn the user that dried paint should not be removed by the use of gasoline near an open flame. We hold there is no such duty.
Some paint spilled on the apartment floor and dried. A number of days later, Sherry Northern and Sharon Gayle Johnson attempted to remove the dried paint spots by pouring gasoline on the floor.
The gasoline fumes came in contact with the open flame of a pilot light and exploded. Sherry Northern died as a result of her injuries. They argue that the defendant had a duty to warn users of the paint of reasonably foreseeable dangers likely to occur while a user is cleaning up spilled paint.
Section A provides in part: Section A expressly provides that the "product" must be in a "defective" condition "unreasonably dangerous" to the user. A lack of warning may constitute the necessary defect. Technical Chemical Company v.
Nevertheless, it is essential that the lack of warning render the product unreasonably dangerous. In the instant case, the product paint is not unreasonably dangerous in the absence of the warning urged by plaintiffs.
The dried paint spots did not explode. The explosion resulted from the use of a product gasoline supplied by a seller other than Jones-Blair. Comment i under Section A states clearly that strict liability applies only where the defective condition of the product makes it unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer.
The comment states, " T he article sold must be dangerous to an extent beyond that which would be contemplated by the ordinary consumer who purchases it, with the ordinary knowledge common to the community as to its characteristics. In Technical Chemical Company v.
Jacobs, supra, the inadequate warning resulted in the "product" exploding "like a stick of dynamite. The user in Bristol-Myers Company v. It is obvious in each of the cited cases that the product itself was unreasonably dangerous. Acme Products Company v. The paint was not in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user and, therefore, there was no duty upon the seller to give the warning urged by plaintiffs.
To hold otherwise would place a duty upon the manufacturers of many marking products, such as crayons and fountain pens, to warn consumers not to use gasoline near an open flame in removing any unwanted marks.
We decline to extend the duty of a seller or manufacturer to this extent. We have considered all points of error, and all are overruled.Oct 25, · Free Essays on Jones Blair. Case: JONES BLAIR COMPANY JONES BLAIR COMPANY, early January Christopher Columbus and the Enterprise of the Indies by Geoffrey Symcox and Blair Sullivan is a brief history of Christopher Columbus and his voyages to the Americas.
For the longest time we were taught that he was the discoverer of the Americas. Jul 18, · DIY How To Paint A Car Yourself Using Primer Sealer, Base Coat, Tri Coat, Clearcoat - Duration: Donnie Smith 1,, views.
1 F.2d () 2 UNITED STATES of America, for the use of Coastal Steel Erectors, Inc., Appellant, v. ALGERNON BLAIR, INCORPORATED, and .
The trial court severed from the original suit the claims by plaintiffs against Jones-Blair Paint Company and the cross-claims filed by Don Mason Builders, Inc. and James Gage seeking contribution or indemnity from Jones-Blair.
This is a comprehensive case analysis of Jones Blair Company. Jones Blair is a manufacturer of paint coatings located in southwest of US. The headquarters of the company is located in Texas,Dallas and most/5(14K). Apr 06, · plombier-nemours.com This Case Is About JONES ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTION (BRIEF CASE) Get Your JONES ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTION (BRIEF CASE)Case Solution at plombier-nemours.com