Product Warnings as Questions of Law; Sufficiency of English-only Warnings

The Eleventh Circuit recently held that courts applying Florida law may determine as a question of law the reasonableness of a product’s warnings. A Florida plaintiff purchased two propane-gas fired, infrared portable heaters designed for outdoor use from Home Depot. Plaintiff used these heaters inside her home and when she neglected to close one of the valves before going to sleep, her house caught on fire. She filed suit against the product manufacturers alleging two theories of recovery: strict product liability and negligent failure to warn.

The product packaging warned consumers: “This heater is recommended for outdoor use only;” “Always store propane cylinders outdoors in well-ventilated areas;” “Not designed for use in living areas or small tightly enclosed spaces;” and “Propane cylinders should be located outdoors during heater operation.” The Instruction Manual also advised customers that the product was not for home or recreational use, that misuse of the product could product could result in fires and explosions; and that the product should not be used while sleeping.

The Florida Supreme Court had previously held that while the adequacy of a warning is typically a question reserved for jury determination, warnings may be adequate as a matter of law where they are “accurate, clear, and unambiguous.” Felix v. Hoffmann-LaRoche, Inc., 540 So.2d 102 (Fla. 1989). The district court applied the Hoffman-LaRoche standard to the warnings on the portable heaters and held that the warnings were adequate as a matter of law. Because adequacy of warnings under Florida law is judged by whether a reasonable consumer, and not the specific plaintiff, would have understood, the Eleventh Circuit upheld the district court’s ruling entering summary judgment for the product manufacturers.

Additionally, the Plaintiff argued that manufacturers have a duty to print product warnings in Spanish where products are sold in areas with a high concentration of Hispanic customers. The United States for the Southern District of Florida previously held that a manufacturer of linseed oil was required to provide warnings in Spanish. Stanley Indus., Inc. v. W.M. Barr & Co., 784 F.Supp. 1570, 1576 (S.D.Fla.1992). But the Eleventh Circuit held that unless manufacturers targeted English as Foreign Language (EFL) consumers, they had no duty to warn in a language other than English. In distinguishing the prior case, the Eleventh Circuit noted that the Stanley defendant had advertised on Hispanic television, on Hispanic radio stations, and in a Spanish-language newspaper.

The Eleventh Circuit’s opinion serves as both a boon and bane for product manufacturers. While the opinion provides an important ground for summary judgment in certain instances, it also forces manufacturers to consider whether foreign language-specific advertising efforts are warranted in light of product warning implications. Additionally, the opinion provides little guidance as to when manufacturers can determine whether they have targeted an EFL population. For more information, the full opinion can be found at Farias v. Mr. Heater, Inc., 684 F.3d 1231 (11th Cir. 2012).