Hoffman v. Houghton Chemical Corp.
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
751 N.E.2d 848 (2001)

- Written by Emily Laird, JD
Facts
Remolindo Hoffman and Jose Sobrinho, workers at Gotham Ink of New England (Gotham), died in an explosion when Hoffman transferred solvents into an unreconditioned drum without attaching grounding clips. The ungrounded solvent transfer caused a spark that ignited vapors in and around the rusty drum. Hoffman’s and Sobrinho’s families (the families) (plaintiffs) brought suit against the manufacturers and suppliers of the chemicals involved in the blast, including Exxon Co., Unocol Chemicals Division, Union Oil Co. of California, and Houghton Chemical Corporation (collectively, the chemical companies) (defendants). The chemical companies supplied Gotham with bulk quantities of toluene, acetone, and methanol. The chemical companies supplied product-safety sheets and warnings to Gotham. Gotham was a sophisticated, knowledgeable purchaser of chemical solvents. Gotham purchased thousands of gallons of flammable chemicals annually. Gotham had periodic safety meetings to train its employees about the safe handling of chemicals. Gotham supervisors relayed safety warnings to employees, even providing Portuguese interpreters for Hoffman and Sobrinho. Gotham issued its own safety-data sheets about cleaning solvents to its customers. Despite its sophistication and knowledge about its products, Gotham allowed its workers to use unreconditioned drums to transfer solvents and to use dollies with nonconductive wheels. The families alleged the chemical companies exhibited negligence and breach of warranty for faulty product design and failure to warn. The trial judge instructed the jury to consider the bulk-supplier doctrine as a defense to the families’ claims. That defense allows a supplier of bulk hazardous materials to avoid failure-to-warn liability in certain circumstances. The jury dismissed the families’ complaints and returned special verdicts in favor of the chemical companies. The families appealed to the appellate court, which refused to grant a new trial. The families then appealed to the state supreme court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Marshall, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.