Lawing v. Univar, USA, Inc., 781 S.E.2d 548

Engelhard purchased sodium bromate (an oxidizer) shipped in 25kg woven plastic bags on shrink-wrapped pallets; the bags bore DOT/oxidizer markings but the shrink-wrap obscured the visible oxidizer symbol on some pallets.
During a plant maintenance shutdown, four pallets of sodium bromate remained in the refinery hall; maintenance workers used an oxyacetylene torch nearby and a falling hot slag ignited the pallets, causing severe injuries to Scott Lawing and co-workers.
Lawing and others sued suppliers (Univar, Trinity, Matrix) for strict liability, negligence (including inadequate labeling/packaging), and breach of implied warranty; Univar settled before appellate resolution of all issues.
Trial court granted Trinity and Matrix summary judgment on strict liability, finding Lawing was not a "user" under S.C. Code § 15-73-10; the trial court nonetheless charged the jury on the sophisticated user defense and the jury found for defendants except on an express-warranty label claim against Univar.
The court of appeals reversed summary judgment (finding Lawing a "user") and affirmed the sophisticated-user jury charge; the South Carolina Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Lawing was a "user" under S.C. Code § 15-73-10 for strict liability	Lawing argued he relied on package labeling (or its absence) to assess risk and therefore was a "user" entitled to strict-liability protection	Trinity/Matrix argued Lawing was not a user (merely a bystander/employee not handling the product) so strict liability does not apply	Court affirmed reversal of summary judgment — Lawing can be a "user" where he used labeling to assess safety — but rejected the appeals court's overly broad foreseeability-based definition and endorsed a case-by-case approach
Whether the sophisticated user instruction was properly given to the jury	Lawing argued the instruction was inappropriate because the primary issue was visibility/adequacy of labeling, not reliance on an intermediary's knowledge	Trinity/Matrix argued Engelhard was a sophisticated user/intermediary and suppliers could reasonably rely on it to warn employees	Court held the charge was erroneous under these facts: Engelhard's knowledge did not relieve suppliers of the duty to adequately label delivered containers that end users (maintenance workers) could not identify

Bray v. Marathon Corp., 356 S.C. 111 (2003) (employee operating defective equipment held a “user” under § 15-73-10; bystander recovery excluded)
Bragg v. Hi-Ranger, Inc., 319 S.C. 531 (1995) (court of appeals affirmed jury charge on sophisticated user doctrine)
Fleming v. Borden, Inc., 316 S.C. 452 (1994) (strict liability applies where product reaches user without substantial change)
Turner v. Milliman, 392 S.C. 116 (2011) (summary judgment standard articulated)
Perry v. Bullock, 409 S.C. 137 (2014) (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
Livingston v. Noland Corp., 293 S.C. 521 (1987) (supplier/manufacturer duty to warn ultimate user)