Document 3VwjRYXL3xRmXOM6mrZzE8x3

MODERATOR. AIIEARX: Thank yon very mueb, Mr. Oviatt. Hr. Baile. MR. BAILE: I think in answering the first of the two questions, yon have to make a distinction between chemicals which are toxic as a normal attribute of the chemical itself on the one hand, and on Die other hand the chemical which is toxic as a resalt of some dangercreating defect that exists in the chemical which would normally be liftyrntgca. Now, I think Mr. Oviatt Is answer is primarily directed to the first class where yon are dealing with the chemical winch is naturally toxic. Under those tirenmstances. when the purchaser is given foil knowledge of the toxic character of it and the dangers that are in herent, or file purchaser, without your telling him, has that knowl edge, I don't think there is any liability on the part of the manu facturer. However, where the toxie character of the chemical is created by some defect in the manufacturing process, then I think there is liability on the part of the manufacturer. I don't think we are going to permit manufacturers to insalate their own carelessness in the manufacture of tlieir product against consumers by the intervention of a middle man. MR. OVIATT: Mr. Baile, after all, the question was what is the liability of the manufacturer of a toxic chemical. Now a chemical is either toxic or not toxic, is that right t MR. BAILE: Not according to my friend at the beginning of the meeting. MR OVIATT: If a chemical becomes toxie because of the de fect, that isn't the subject of our meeting today, is itf I thought we -are just speaking of materials that are inherently toxic without any defect producing toxicity. MODERATOR AHEARN: I believe it would be helpful to the audience, Mr. Baile, if we had more pointed discussion of the second half of this question, because it seems to me it is a question which most people in this gudience arc very mueb interested in. Will yon point your remarks specifically to that question! MR. BAILE: As Mr. Oviatt pointed out. the basic consideration in imposing liability upon a manufacturer of a chemical, which in its nature is toxic, is the obligation that is imposed upon him to dissemi nate the knowledge that he has of the dangers to the purchaser. Now, his only method of doing that in most instances is through labeling [256] the product wit particular use countered. Hai If, thereto ing on hia.pn advantage of ' -cither refusing clearly under*it-constitutes o which would b. manufacturer. MR. OVI. is that the ma: MR. BAD MODERA that additional By the wr request of tile panel are sjiea be regarded at may assume tl We will g producer of a tion. research. MR. HA1 morning that get the pmdu- We bn; substances liav esen-M -ihe ex vance that lie the material b- 1 recall one company material mpii approval of 1 another toxic up an elahora the material. ; adequate sat'-: I would 1!