The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that a label was sufficient to comply with the Federal Hazardous Substances Act. In Suarez v. W.M. Barr & Company, Inc. 842 F.3d 512 (7th Cir. 2016) plaintiff was injured when a fire erupted while he was using defendant’s product causing injury. Plaintiff alleged a failure to warn, based on violation of Federal Hazardous Substances Act (FHSA) and defective design under Illinois law. The trial court entered summary judgment and on appeal the court affirmed summary judgment on the failure to warn however reversed summary judgment on the design defect claim.
The Court of Appeals found that the label adequately identified the principal hazards and precautionary measures. Plaintiff contended that the label should have included a warning about static sparks which could result in a fire. In response the court said:
“But as the text of the Act makes clear, a label need not identify every conceivable way in which a predicate condition for a principal hazard itself ? here, flammability. See, e.g. Mwesigwa, 637 F.3d at 888-89 (holding that “an additional warning indicating the magnified risk of flash fire” in certain circumstances was not required, since the label already identified flammability as the principal hazard to avoid).”
The Court in reviewing the label said:
“Here, the label stated in bolded and capitalized letters, “Danger! Extremely flammable. Keep away from heat, sparks, flame and all other sources of Ignition. Vapor may cause flash fire or ignite explosively.” That was enough to satisfy [the Act].”