Sands in the Gears of Justice: An Expanded Duty to Warn in Products Liability Cases in Minnesota?

Abstract

In its opinion in Gray v. Badger Mining Corp. 676 N.W.2d 268 (Minn. 2004), the Minnesota Supreme Court summarized a considerable portion of Minnesota law addressing the general obligation of a product manufacturer or supplier to warn of the risks associated with the product's use. The essence of a "failure to warn" claim is that the product manufacturer or supplier failed to provide information about the risks associated with the use of the product that a reasonable manufacturer or supplier should have foreseen was necessary to avoid creating an unreasonable risk of harm. The core issue in these cases is whether the defendant knew, or should have known, information that she should have shared with the plaintiff directly or in some cases through intermediaries.

At bottom, these cases are primarily about who knows or should know about product-related risks. The answer to the "who knew what" question affects a number of critical issues in failure to warn cases. The most important are: (1) Whether the defendant had a duty to warn; (2) Whether the product manufacturer or supplier was negligent for failure to warn about product-related risks or, what amounts to the same thing in Minnesota, whether the product was defective for failure to warn; (3) Whether the failure to warn caused the plaintiff's harm; and (4) Whether the plaintiff was contributorily negligent so as to be a substantial factor in causing his own harm.

While it does not appear that the court meant to make any new law, its opinion may nevertheless provide the basis for an argument that the general scope of a product manufacturer's duty to warn has been expanded. The opinion should also help lawyers understand more clearly the kinds of evidence that should be developed and brought to bear on several critical issues in failure to warn cases.

Keywords: duty to warn, failure to warn, sophisticated intermediary