York v. Union Carbide Corp.
Court of Appeals of Indiana
586 N.E.2d 861 (1992)
- Written by Sara Rhee, JD
Facts
Michael York was a millwright for the United States Steel Corporation (USX). USX operated a steel-making furnace that was 32 feet deep. Union Carbide Corporation (Union Carbide) (defendant) supplied argon gas to the furnace through a main supply pipe. Union Carbide was not involved in the design, installation, or operation of the piping. In March 1986, USX shut down the furnace to make repairs. The argon pipelines were disconnected for the repairs but were reconnected two days before the repairs were completed. During these two days, argon gas flowed to the furnace chamber undetected. A USX technician tested the oxygen levels in the chamber and found that there was no oxygen deficiency. However, the USX technician mistakenly tested the air too high above the vessel floor. York and a coworker subsequently went to work at the bottom of the vessel and died from asphyxiation caused by the presence of argon gas in the lower part of the vessel. York’s wife (plaintiff), as the administrator of York’s estate, sued Union Carbide under a products-liability cause of action. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Union Carbide. York’s wife appealed, arguing that the products-liability cause of action was not preempted by federal law and that Union Carbide had failed to fulfill its duty to warn York of the hazards associated with argon gas.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Staton, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.
