Unpublished Dispositionraymond L. Ryntz and Rosemarie Ryntz, Plaintiffs-appellants, v. Afrimet Indussa, Inc. et al., Defendants-appellees, 887 F.2d 1087 (6th Cir. 1989)

Plaintiffs-appellants, Raymond and Rosemarie Ryntz, appeal from the order of the district court granting summary judgment for defendants-appellees¹  in this diversity products liability action. This case arose from Raymond Ryntz's employment as a lathe operator and grinder at the Carboloy Systems Division of the General Electric Company ("Carboloy"). Rosemarie Ryntz alleges that during her husband's employment at Carboloy, he was exposed to alleged toxic substances, namely cobalt dust, which caused his injuries and subsequent death. Defendants are companies that supplied cobalt powder to Carboloy during the period of plaintiff's employment. Rosemarie Ryntz argues that defendants failed to warn of the dangers associated with cobalt and such failure gave rise to claims in negligence and breach of implied warranty.

Relying on Tasca v. GTE Products Corp., No. 85-2409 (Macomb Cty, Cir.Ct. Jan 26, 1987) and Schmidt v. GTE Products Corp., No. 84-3715 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 16, 1986), the district court held that defendants had no duty to warn Raymond Ryntz of the dangerousness of cobalt because Carboloy was a "sophisticated user" of the product with full knowledge of its dangerous propensities. Defendants, therefore, could rely on Carboloy to warn its employees. Moreover, because Carboloy was aware of the dangerousness of its product, no implied warranty arose.

After review of counsels' oral argument, the record, and the briefs submitted in this case, we find no error warranting reversal. Therefore, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court, the Honorable Robert E. DeMascio, Eastern District of Michigan, based upon the well-written and thorough analysis set forth in its order and judgment of March 18, 1988.