Updated Standards: More Guidance For Warnings And

Product Liability CommitteeUpdated StandardsMore Guidance for Warningsand Instructionsby Kenneth RossThe ANSI Z535 set of standards deal-ing with product safety labels have been inexistence since 1991. They have providedmanufacturers with good guidance for thecreation of safety labels, and where challenged, a pretty good defense. These standards are being revised and a new edition willbe published in 2006.Standards in Europe dealing with safetylabels are also being revised. And there isan ongoing effort to harmonize the U.S. andEuropean standards so that manufacturerscan, if they choose, sell their products withone set of safety labels around the world.In addition, the ANSI committee will beexpanding the reach of the Z535 standardsto include instruction manuals. A new partof the revised standards is set to be published in 2006, which will provide guidanceon how to incorporate safety informationcontained on safety labels attached to theproduct into instruction manuals.This article will discuss the U.S. labelingstandards and how they will be revised, thenew standard on instruction manuals, andissues related to testing the comprehensionof both warnings and instructions.Basic Duty to Warn and InstructThe Restatement (Third) of Torts: ProductsLiability (“Restatement”) makes it clearthat product sellers must provide “reasonable warnings and instructions” about risksthat exist in their products. Restatement,§2(c), cmt. i.The Restatement differentiates warnings and instructions as follows. “Warningsalert users and consumers to the existenceand nature of product risks so that they canprevent harm either by appropriate conductduring use or consumption or by choosing not to use or consume.” Id. Instructions“inform persons how to use and consumeproducts safely.” Id.Additionally, it has been held that warnings, standing alone, may have no practical relevance without instructions, andinstructions without warnings may not beadequate. See Antcliff v. State EmployeesCredit Union, 414 Mich. 624, 327 N.W.2d814 (1982).Therefore, when the law talks about the“duty to warn,” it includes providing warnings on products in the form of safety labels,safety information in instructions, instruc-Kenneth Ross, Of Counsel to Bowman and Brooke LLP in Minneapolis and a member of DRI’s Product Liability Committee, has advised manufacturers on safetylabels and instruction manuals since 1976. He co-authored one of the main reference texts on safety labels in 1980 and has been very active in assisting manufacturers and trade associations on labeling and manual projects, including thetesting of labels.December 2005 2005 DRI. All rights reserved.tions that affirmatively describe how to usea product safely, and safety information inother means of communication such as videos, advertising, catalogs, websites, etc.The law says that a manufacturer has aduty to warn where: 1) the product is dangerous; 2) the danger is or should be knownby the manufacturer; 3) the danger is present when the product is used in the usualand expected manner; and 4) the danger isnot obvious or well known to the user. SeeBilliar v. Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., 623 F.2d 240, 243 (2d Cir. 1980).Once the decision has been made towarn, the manufacturer needs to determinewhether the warning is adequate. Generally, the adequacy of a warning in a particular situation is a question of fact tobe decided by the jury. There are a number of cases, however, where the court hasgenerally described an adequate warning.The United States Court of Appeals for theFourth Circuit in 1962 stated:If warning of the danger is given and thiswarning is of a character reasonably calculated to bring home to the reasonablyprudent person the nature and extent ofthe danger, it is sufficient to shift the risk ofharm from the manufacturer to the user.To be of such character the warning mustembody two characteristics: first, it mustbe in such form that it could reasonablybe expected to catch the attention of thereasonably prudent man in the circumstances of its use; secondly, the content ofthe warning must be of such a nature as tobe comprehensible to the average user andto convey a fair indication of the natureand extent of the danger to the mind of areasonably prudent person.Spruill v. Boyle-Midway, Inc., 308 F.2d 79, 85(4th Cir. 1962). See also Pavlides v. GalvestonYacht Basin, Inc., 727 F.2d 330 (5th Cir. 1984).More specifically, various courts and commentators have described a list of requirements and goals of an adequate warning. Anadequate warning will: Alert the consumer or user to the severity of the hazard; severity being definedas the magnitude of the hazard and thelikelihood of it being encountered; Clearly state the nature of the hazard; Clearly state the consequences of the hazard; and Provide instructions on how to avoid thehazard.33

Product Liability CommitteeThe Restatement says that a court mustfocus on a warning’s “content and comprehensibility, intensity of expression, and thecharacteristics of expected user groups” todetermine its adequacy.The use of terms such as “reasonably beexpected to catch the attention of the reasonably prudent user” and “characteristics of expected user groups” makes it clearthat, in the United States, the jury gets todecide the adequacy of warnings. Reportedtrial court and appellate court cases havenot been particularly helpful because thereare so many variables in hazards, avoidanceprocedures, and the skills and backgroundsof the readers of the warnings. See KennethRoss and Matthew W. Adams, Legally Adequate Warning Labels: A Conundrum forEvery Manufacturer, For The Defense, October 1998 at 7.Case law concerning the adequacy ofinstructions is also not particularly illuminating. Most of the cases talk about the adequacy of warnings either on the product orin the manual. In discussing the adequacy ofinstructions, the cases only say that manualsshould be “adequate, accurate, and effective”and “clear, complete, and adequately communicated.” See Articliff, supra and Broussard v. Houdaille Industries, Inc., 183 Ill.App.3d 739 (1st Dist. 1989).Thankfully, the ANSI Z535 standards inthe United States have provided some goodguidelines on creating safety labels and willprovide useful information on how to incorporate safety information into instructions.Unfortunately, these standards only provide formats for labels and instructions. Asa result, it is possible to comply with thesestandards and still have inadequate content,thereby resulting in potentially legally inadequate warnings and instructions.Current U.S. Labeling StandardANSI Z535 was initially published in 1991with revisions in 1998 and 2002. It provides the basis for developing a safety labelsystem. Unlike some other labeling standards, ANSI Z535.4 sets forth performancerequirements for the design, application, useand placement of safety labels. The purposeof this standard isto establish a uniform and consistentvisual layout for safety signs and labelsapplied to a wide variety of products.” Itis also designed to create a “national uni34form system for the recognition of potential personal injury hazards for thosepersons using products.ANSI Z535.4 deals with on-product safetylabels and provides for a specific formatlabel containing a signal word panel, wordmessage panel and an optional pictorial orsymbol panel. The messages required by thestandard to be transmitted, with words orsymbols individually or in combination, are:1) nature of the hazard; 2) the seriousness ofthe hazard or probability that the user willencounter the hazard; 3) the consequencesA fair reading of thestandard is that a symbolonly label must still transmitthe required messages.of encountering the hazard or the severity ofthe injury; and 4) how to avoid the hazard.These requirements are consistent with thecase law that requires a label to convey the“nature and extent” of the danger.The ANSI standard defines a symbolor pictorial as a graphic representationintended to convey a message without theuse of words. It goes on to say that the symbol or pictorial may represent a hazard, ahazardous situation, a precaution to avoida hazard, the result of not avoiding a hazard, or any combination of these messages.Z535.4 also states that symbols should bereadily understood and effectively communicate the message. The case law also talksabout labels that are “comprehensible” to theaverage user.In 2002, the ANSI standard was changedto allow the manufacturer to use a symbol tosubstitute for all or a portion of the requiredword messages “if it has been demonstratedto be satisfactorily comprehended orthere is a means (e.g., instructions, trainingmaterials, manuals, etc.) to inform peopleof the symbol’s meaning.” ANSI Z535.42002, §11.2.The original text of the ANSI standarddid not allow a manufacturer to substitutea part of the message with a symbol unlessthe symbol had been tested to confirm thatit was “satisfactorily comprehended.” The2002 change was meant to allow symbols tobe placed on labels even if they haven’t beentested as long as they were described in theinstruction manual.However, while the 2002 ANSI standardallowed for symbols to take the place ofwords in the message panel, manufacturersrealized that they should be careful beforethey relied on a symbol to fully communicate the message. Since symbols may represent a variety of messages, it would beunusual for a symbol to be able to replace allword messages that are generally requiredby the law or the standard.Also in 2002, the ANSI Z535.3 standard,which deals with symbols on safety labels,was changed to add a reference to the type ofsymbols used in the European ISO standard.The revision said that the formats for symbols in the ISO standard “may be considered.” This was the first attempt to harmonizethe ANSI and ISO labeling standards.ISO Labeling and Product StandardsThe International Organization for Standardization (ISO) has a labeling standard,ISO 3864-2, that is very different from ANSIZ535. Symbols are the essential ingredientof this labeling system. Through the use ofshape, colors, and symbols, ISO believes thateach symbol can adequately communicate asafety message.Such a system is preferable in Europebecause there are many languages spokenand read in different countries and thereare open borders that allow products to easily move from country to country. The resultcan be that for many products, the manufacturer may not know where the product willbe used during its lifetime. Having symbolsthat transmit at least part of the messageprovides some warning of the hazard.Another reason for the different systemsis that, apparently, European employers provide more safety training on the job than inthe United States. The result is that symbolsdon’t have to be readily comprehensible tosomeone with no training. The assumptionis that the employee encountering a symbol on a machine in the workplace will havebeen educated as to the symbol’s meaning.With consumer products, there are alsogovernment safety agencies in many European countries that are active in trying to educate consumers as to the meaning of safetysymbols placed on consumer products.In the United States, it is very different.Manufacturers generally can’t assume thatFor The Defense