Fifth Circuit Court Cases - Case Law and Opinions from the 5th Circuit Federal Court - Court of Appeals

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Opinions - 5th Circuit
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -CLICK HERE

This opinion or court case is from the Fifth Circuit Court or Appeals. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

LEGAL RESEARCH

COURT REPORTERS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

PROCESS SERVERS

DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS

EXPERT WITNESSES

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

Legal News - Legal Headlines

United States Court of Appeals,
Fifth Circuit.
No. 95-30371.
Julie COMEAUX, Individually and as natural tutrix of her minor son, Aaron Achor, Plaintiff-
Appellant,
v.
NATIONAL TEA CO.; McDonald's Restaurants, Inc., Defendants,
Ronson Corporation, Defendant-Appellee,
General Accident Insurance Company of America, Defendant.
April 24, 1996.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.
Before REAVLEY, GARWOOD and JOLLY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Aaron Achor, a nine-year-old boy, was burned when the Ronsonol lighter fluid in a
McDonald's plastic pumpkin and on his clothes and skin ignited when either he or his eight-year-old
companion Chris Holley struck a match. Achor had poured the lighter fluid into the pumpkin, getting
some on the ground and on himself. The two boys had purchased both the Ronsonol lighter fluid and
the matches at a grocery store earlier the same day. Plaintiff-appellant Julie Comeaux (Comeaux),
Achor's mother, brought this suit, individually and on Achor's behalf, to recover damages for Achor's
injuries against the grocery store and defendant-appellee Ronson Corporation (Ronson), manufacturer
of the lighter fluid. The claim against Ronson was cast under the Louisiana Products Liability Act
(LPLA), La.R.S. 9:2800.51. The case was removed to the district court below on the basis of
diversity. Ronson filed a motion for summary judgment contending that its product, which contains
naphtha, was not unreasonably dangerous under the LPLA, and that its warnings were in compliance
with the Federal Hazardous Substances Act (FHSA), 15 U.S.C. 壯 1261 et seq., and the
implementing regulations thereunder, which preempted any state law requirements for other or
different warnings. The district court granted the motion, concluding that the summary judgment
evidence showed as a matter of law that the lighter fluid was not unreasonably dangerous and that

there was no failure to adequately warn in respect to it, and thus no recovery could be had from
Ronson under the LPLA. The district court did not reach Ronson's preemption argument. The court
rendered judgment for Ronson, and certified it for appeal under Rule 54(b).
On appeal, Comeaux's only complaint is her assertion that there is a fact issue as to the
adequacy of Ronson's warnings under the LPLA. However, it is undisputed that Ronson's lighter fluid
is subject to the FHSA and that Ronson's warnings fully complied with the FHSA and the regulations
thereunder. Making, arguendo, the dubious assumption that there is a fact issue as to the adequacy
of the warnings under the LPLA, nevertheless the summary judgment for Ronson must be sustained
because the FHSA preempts any state law warning requirements other than those imposed by the
FHSA and its implementing regulations. We so held respecting the almost identical preemptive
provisions of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. 壯 136-136y,
in MacDonald v. Monsanto Co., 27 F.3d 1021 (5th Cir.1994). And we now apply that same
reasoning to the FHSA and its implementing regulations, as did the Fourth Circuit in Moss v. Parks
Corporation, 985 F.2d 736 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. 2999, 125 L.Ed.2d 693
(1993). The warnings given by Ronson were in compliance with and fulfilled the warnings obligations
under the FHSA and its implementing regulations, and any other or further warnings requirements,
if any, under the LPLA are preempted.
Accordingly, the district court's judgment is
AFFIRMED.