Jowers v. BOC Group, Inc.
United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi
2009 WL 995613 (2009)
- Written by Jamie Milne, JD
Facts
Robert Jowers (plaintiff) worked as a welder for Ingalls Shipyard (Ingalls). Jowers routinely used welding rods manufactured by Lincoln Electric Company, BOC Group, Inc., and ESAB Group, Inc. (the manufacturers) (defendants). The manufacturers shipped their welding rods with warning labels identifying safety risks, but Jowers never read the labels. Ingalls periodically received publications from the manufacturers addressing safety issues, including identifying potential risks from welding fumes. The publications were available to supervisory employees, and the manufacturers relied on Ingalls to convey the safety information to its welders. Jowers started experiencing neurological symptoms, and he sued the manufacturers, alleging that his injuries were attributable to welding fumes from their welding rods. Specifically, Jowers asserted claims for conscious misrepresentation and negligent misrepresentation. As to both claims, Jowers argued that the manufacturers’ omission to warn him of the risk from welding fumes amounted to a misrepresentation or, alternatively, that the manufacturers provided incomplete or inaccurate information about the risks to Ingalls, knowing that Ingalls would share the misrepresentations with its employees. The manufacturers moved for summary judgment, arguing that Jowers could not prove the elements of either type of misrepresentation claim.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (O’Malley, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 821,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 989 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.