Our blog has moved, and is new and improved.

You should be automatically redirected in 3 seconds. If not, visit
and update your bookmarks.

Friday, June 1, 2007

The 3M suit; When is a warning adequate?

The Star Tribune has reported that Twin Cities-based 3M is being sued by a California couple whose daughter died after deliberately inhaling 3M Dust Remover. According to the article, the plaintiffs argue that the product was made and sold without proper labels warning that the aerosol is dangerous if purposely inhaled. "Adequate warning labels" could have saved their child, the couple argue in their suit.

3M responded that the product is safe, and that it does, in fact, contain a warning on the label indicating that "Intentional misuse by deliberately concentrating and inhaling the contents may be harmful and fatal."

Hummmm... if 3M's response is accurate, it will be interesting to see how a jury views this matter -- if it makes it that far. While the facts of this case are indeed tragic, one has to wonder how much more of a warning 3M could have put on the label to make it "adequate."

No comments: