Lambert v. Lastoplex Chemicals

Lambert v. Lastoplex Chemicals

Where a manufactured product is dangerous in ordinary use and the manufacturer knows of the danger, the manufacturer must provide warnings sufficiently explicit to inform users of attendant risks that are not known to ordinary users; the respondent's labels were not explicit about vapour spread and pilot-light/spark ignition risk in gas-serviced residences, and the plaintiff did not voluntarily assume the risk, so manufacturer was liable.

Citation
[1972] SCR 569
Parties
Plaintiffs/appellants: Edison Howard Lambert and Elizabeth Helen Lambert; Defendants/respondents: Lastoplex Chemicals Co. Limited and Barwood Sales (Ontario) Limited
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
20 December 1971
Procedural Posture
Tort Negligence (product Liability) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Ontario (final Appeal)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment of the Court of Appeal set aside; judgment of Morand J. restored in favour of the appellants; costs awarded to appellants.
Legal Topics
Manufacturer's Liability, Warning Adequacy, Inherent Danger (inflammability), Contributory Negligence, Volenti Non Fit Injuria
Source Language
English
Torts Product Liability Negligence Manufacturer Duty to Warn Manufacturer's Liability Warning Adequacy Inherent Danger (inflammability) Contributory Negligence +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Edison Howard Lambert and Elizabeth Helen Lambert

Plaintiffs/appellants

Lastoplex Chemicals Co. Limited and Barwood Sales (Ontario) Limited

Defendants/respondents

Procedural Posture

Tort Negligence (product Liability) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Ontario (final Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether manufacturer liable for injuries caused by an inflammable product despite caution labels
  2. 2 Whether warnings on product were sufficiently explicit given foreseeable surroundings (gas pilot lights)
  3. 3 Whether plaintiff's special knowledge or conduct (failure to extinguish pilot lights) negates manufacturer's duty or amounts to volenti or contributory negligence

Ratio Decidendi

Where a manufactured product is dangerous in ordinary use and the manufacturer knows of the danger, the manufacturer must provide warnings sufficiently explicit to inform users of attendant risks that are not known to ordinary users; the respondent's labels were not explicit about vapour spread and pilot-light/spark ignition risk in gas-serviced residences, and the plaintiff did not voluntarily assume the risk, so manufacturer was liable.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment of the Court of Appeal set aside; judgment of Morand J. restored in favour of the appellants; costs awarded to appellants.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario set aside