310 P.3d 1127
Okla. Civ. App.2013Background
- In Oct. 2008 nine-year-old B.S. was severely burned when he ignited a mixed residue from an "Exploding Scarecrow Jr." target kit; the kit contained potassium perchlorate and magnalium and an instruction/warning sheet.
- Plaintiffs sued the chemical distributor Service Chemical, Inc. (SCI), and others, alleging negligent failure to warn and strict products liability based on SCI's sale of raw chemicals to Havasu Research, which manufactured the kits.
- SCI sold industrial/technical‑grade chemicals to Havasu (a licensed ATF pyrotechnics permit holder) and provided MSDS warnings; SCI did not manufacture explosives, did not repackage chemicals materially for this sale, and typically did not investigate customers’ intended end uses.
- Plaintiffs argued SCI knew or should have known Havasu and downstream sellers would make and sell exploding target kits to consumers and thus owed end‑user warnings beyond MSDS content. Plaintiffs asserted SCI engaged in willful ignorance.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for SCI; the appellate court reviewed de novo whether SCI owed a duty to Plaintiffs (strict liability or negligence) and affirmed judgment for SCI.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SCI can be strictly liable for failing to warn end users | SCI sold chemicals without warnings adequate for foreseeable end‑use by consumers of the assembled kit | SCI sold raw industrial chemicals to a knowledgeable industrial buyer (Havasu); Plaintiffs were not "ordinary consumers" of SCI's products | SCI not strictly liable — Plaintiffs were not ordinary consumers of SCI's industrial chemicals; no duty to warn them under §402A theory |
| Whether SCI, as a component/raw‑material supplier, had liability under Restatement (Third) §5 | Raw chemicals reached the injured child unchanged so SCI should be treated as directly liable | §5 limits supplier liability absent component defect or substantial participation in design/integration | SCI not liable under §5 — chemicals were not defective and SCI did not substantially participate in product design |
| Whether SCI owed a negligence duty to foreseeable users (Restatement §388) | SCI should have investigated/ensured warnings passed to end users or warned end consumers directly | SCI reasonably relied on Havasu's ATF permit and had no reason to anticipate Havasu would sell to unknowledgeable consumers; burden to warn public would be onerous | No negligence duty — SCI supplied an industrial, knowledgeable buyer and had no reason to foresee harm to ordinary consumers |
| Whether SCI knew or should have known of Havasu's specific plan to make consumer exploding kits | Plaintiffs point to industry info (ATF newsletter) and allege willful ignorance to impute knowledge | Plaintiffs produced no direct evidence SCI knew Havasu would make consumer kits; SCI required ATF permit and relied on it | No genuine fact issue — Plaintiffs failed to show SCI had actual knowledge or could reasonably be charged with knowing this specific end use |
Key Cases Cited
- Manley v. Brown, 989 P.2d 448 (Okla. 1999) (summary judgment review is de novo)
- Prince v. B.F. Ascher Co., 90 P.3d 1020 (Okla. Civ. App. 2004) (duty is a threshold legal question)
- Spence v. Brown‑Minneapolis Tank Co., 198 P.3d 395 (Okla. Civ. App. 2008) (supplier duties in products cases)
- Kirkland v. Gen. Motors Corp., 521 P.2d 1353 (Okla. 1974) (adopting Restatement §402A strict liability framework)
- McKee v. Moore, 648 P.2d 21 (Okla. 1982) (manufacturer must warn consumers of known hazards)
- Woods v. Fruehauf Trailer Corp., 765 P.2d 770 (Okla. 1988) (defining the "ordinary consumer" for duty to warn)
- Duane v. Okla. Gas & Elec. Co., 833 P.2d 284 (Okla. 1992) (knowledgeable user defense bars supplier duty to warn)
- Runyon v. Reid, 510 P.2d 943 (Okla. 1973) (burden shifts on summary judgment when movant establishes no genuine issue)