Sowell v. American Cyanamid Co.
United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
888 F.2d 802 (1989)

- Written by Emily Laird, JD
Facts
James Sowell was a welder for a naval air station’s public-works department. Sowell was assigned the duty of welding a tank containing sulfuric acid. While Sowell was welding the tank, hydrogen combined with the tank’s sulfuric acid, causing an explosion that permanently injured Sowell. Sowell sued American Cyanamid Co. (the sulfuric acid supplier), J. B. Converse Co., Inc. (Converse) (the tank designer), and Sidney Harrison (the employee who told Sowell to begin welding) (defendants). Sowell brought failure-to-warn products-liability and negligence actions against American Cyanamid, Converse, and Harrison in federal district court. Sowell presented an expert at trial who stated that Converse’s act of supplying a safety manual to the Navy did not discharge its duty to warn end users such as Sowell. The expert also testified that visual safety warnings should have been placed on the tank. The jury found in favor of Sowell and awarded $1.2 million in damages. The district court disagreed with the jury’s findings and entered a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The court held that Sowell was not the user of the product to which American Cyanamid and Converse owed a warning. Sowell appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Allen, 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.