Position:
Warning labels should appear on garments that are highly flammable.
I was
retained in a case where a woman was badly burned as a consequence of
her cotton flannel nightgown catching on fire. Many arguments were raised
as to why a warning should not appear on such a garment. These arguments
are presented below followed by my response.
My opinions
follow from the basic tenet that if an accident can be anticipated,
then reasonable precautions should be taken to reduce both the likelihood
of its occurrence and the severity of its negative consequences. Since
consumers may elect not to read or to comply with warnings and safety
information, they should not be viewed as a substitute for safety precautions
taken in the design and fabrication of a product. Product warnings should
be considered only if residual risk remains following attempts to eliminate
the hazard through design and choice of materials.
Product Safety Information
According
to the Final Report of the National Commission of Product Safety
(1970): "Risks of bodily harm to users are not unreasonable when consumers
know that risks exist, can appraise their probability and severity,
know how to cope with them, and voluntarily accept them to get benefits
that could not be obtained in less risky ways." It follows that risks
of bodily harm to users may be unreasonable when consumers do not know
that risks exist, cannot appraise their probability and severity, do
not know how to cope with them, and do not voluntarily accept them to
get benefits that could be obtained in less risky ways.
With regard to
cotton flannel garments:
-
Do consumers know that such garments are highly flammable?
-
Would consumers select cotton flannel garments if they knew how flammable
they were and could select garments (style x fabric) that were less
flammable?
-
Do product users know what to do to minimize bodily harm if their
garment ignites?
In
my opinion, if the answer to each of the above questions is "yes," then
there would be little need to provide warnings or safety information
on cotton flannel garments. However, if there is a basis to believe
that consumers either do not appreciate that cotton flannel is highly
flammable, or know the appropriate behavior should the garment catch
fire, then such safety information should be provided. I believe people
have the right to information that can impact upon their safety and
well-being.
Compliance
Compliance
relates to how persuasive a message is in eliciting the behavior desired
by its source. In my opinion, warnings and safety information should
be provided even if it can be anticipated that many consumers will elect
not to read or to comply with such information. Warnings and safety
information are provided to afford consumers the opportunity
to comply. If consumers know that cotton flannel is highly flammable
and know what to do if the garment catches on fire, then they voluntarily
assume the risks associated with use of that product. In my opinion,
warnings and safety information provide consumers not only with an opportunity
to comply, but also with an opportunity for the voluntary assumption
of risk.
Warning
Labels on Clothing
Various
reasons have been advanced for why it is unnecessary to use warning
labels on clothing.
Argument
1: Since
almost all textile clothing will burn, to one degree or another, warnings
should be directed toward those products which are unreasonably flammable,
but those products have already been taken off the market.
Response:
The burning rate of cotton flannel fabrics is faster
than that of many paper products. The consumer should have some indication
of which
fabrics are significantly more flammable than others, as well as some
say
as to what is "unreasonably flammable."

Argument
2: Surveys by the National
Smoke, Fire and Burn Foundation found that, nationwide, over 95% of
adults and over 85% of school-aged children know that clothing will
burn, and of course, if it burns they can be injured. Do we need to
tell people what they already know?
Response:
At issue
is not whether consumers know that clothing will burn. The issue is
whether consumers know that a particular garment is highly flammable.
Moreover, do they know what to do if their garment ignites? Buchbinder
(1973) reported that "‘running' was the most frequent first reaction
with ‘beating flames with hands’ and ‘trying to remove clothing’ ranking
second and third in frequency." Running is an inappropriate response
because it fans the fire.
Argument
3:
Clothing
items are among the safest of all household textile products, with more
than 22*
other items being involved in accidents more frequently than clothing.
We do not put warnings on safe products.
Response:
The purpose of the Consumer Product Hazard Index was to aid
the Consumer Product Commission in establishing its regulatory priorities.
It is based on the premise that risk involves both the probability of
harm and its severity. The frequency of injury associated with the use
of various products is obtained from the National Electronic Injury
Surveillance System (NEISS) analyses of hospital emergency admissions.
The severity of injury is ranked on a scale assigning the highest number
to death and low numbers to injuries such as skin abrasions and irritations.
(The index is adjusted to give extra weight to children's injuries.)
Unfortunately, the index does not take into account exposure to hazardous
conditions. If exposure is infrequent, then injuries will be rare. A
product may have a relatively low rank on the index even if exposure
to hazardous conditions invariably yields lethal consequences. Further,
many products may be grouped into a single category, e.g., "Clothing
Inc. Day & Nightwear," which will tend to mask differences in the
level of risk associated with its members. According to the Consumer
Product Safety Commission (NEISS NEWS, December 1975), the index does
not indicate a cause and effect relationship between the product and
the injury.
The intended audience
of product warnings and safety information are individuals who use the
product. Likewise, risk should be viewed in terms of the individual.
The risk to an individual in using a product depends on his or her exposure
to conditions that can cause bodily harm. In my opinion, a product cannot
be said to be safe if its users are ignorant of the conditions that
expose them to danger.
Argument
4: None
of the flammability accidents associated with clothing items happen
without some improper contributory action by either the victim or someone
around that victim. It always takes either ignorance (a lack of knowledge
of some contributory hazard), carelessness, or neglect (either failure
to supervise or failure to educate) for a flammability accident to happen
with clothing.
Response:
Flammable clothing is safe provided it is not exposed to flame
or extreme heat. Similarly, fire is safe provided one is not directly
exposed to flame, extreme heat, or toxic smoke. It is the variability
in what constitutes safe proximity between clothing of various fabric
types and a heat source that is the concern. I agree that clothing might
be exposed to fire because of the failure to supervise or to educate.
But the very purpose of warnings and safety information is to educate
consumers so that they can make informed decisions, such as opting not
to purchase the garment, or only to wear the garment when they will
not be exposed to open flames, or to know what to do if the garment
catches on fire.
Argument
5: A
flammability accident is not reasonably foreseeable in the sense that
it is just as foreseeable that the purchaser of an article of clothing
will be struck and killed by lightning.
Response:
It is reasonably foreseeable that people who wear highly flammable
clothing are more likely to be severely burned as a consequence of being
exposed to fire or extreme heat than people who wear less flammable
clothing. It is
reasonably foreseeable
that firemen are more likely to be exposed to fire and extreme heat
than lawyers. All other factors being equal, it is
reasonably foreseeable
that firemen run a greater risk of their clothing catching on fire than
lawyers. Lightning does not distinguish between firemen and lawyers.
Argument
6: Even
if a manufacturer put a warning in an article of clothing, it wouldn’t
work. Given the choice between two apparently comparable products, one
carrying a label and the other without such a warning, the consumer
will invariably select the one without a warning because unlabeled goods
would carry the implication that they are (somehow) safer.
Response:
If the garment without the warning is less flammable than the
one with the warning, then consumers should select the one without the
label. If the product without the warning label is equally flammable,
or more flammable, than the one with the label, it should be provided
a warning label.
Argument
7: Selective
warnings would mislead consumers because there would be a reasonable
basis for the inference that unlabeled items are free from the shortcomings
of those classes of goods which carry a warning label. Even if all shirts
had flammability labels wouldn't it be logical for consumers to believe
that unlabeled trousers or underwear items are safer?
Response:
It is not logical that a person shopping for a shirt would purchase
a pair of briefs instead because he or she believed that the underwear
was less flammable than the shirt. In my opinion, it does not matter
whether a consumer believes that unlabeled trousers or underwear are
safer than a labeled shirt because it is not relevant to behavior.
Argument
8: So
if warning labels are used in clothing items, they will have to be put
in all clothing items.
Response:
Warning labels should be provided on only those clothing
items that are highly flammable and where there is a discrepancy between
perceived flammability and actual flammability. In other words, warnings
should only be provided if they are informative.
Argument
9: It
seems obvious that if all items of clothing did carry a warning about
fire or flammability, the warning would have absolutely no meaning to
the public.
Response:
If all items of clothing were provided the same warning, the
warning would have little value. But all garments are not equally as
flammable.
Argument
10: Consumers
may know that clothing burns, but not its rate of burning and how much
injury can result at a particular period of time. As a matter of fact,
no one knows that, not even the experts. The rate of burning and injuries
that might be sustained depend on a score of factors, including how
the garment is ignited and by what ignited it; how long it burns before
burning is detected; how easily the particular fabric can be extinguished;
how the garment is designed and how it fits; what other garments are
being worn; what the victim does (or fails to do); the availability
of rescue; the environment; and others. Explicit, detailed descriptive
warnings are obviously impractical.
Response:
Space constraints combined with legibility requirements may
make it impractical to place all safety information on a hang tag. If
this is the case, then it will be necessary to determine what information
should appear on the tag and what, if any, information should be placed
in a supplemental source such as informational material that is packaged
with a garment.
Argument
11: Why
clothing and textiles? What about the 100 or more other products in
our homes which are more frequently, or much, much more frequently involved
in accidents than clothing? Doesn't logic also require that they carry
warning labels? These products range from bicycles to pencils, from
stairs to scissors, from bathtubs to beds.
Response:
No, logic does not necessarily dictate that such products carry
warning labels. Information is for the reduction of uncertainty. There
is little uncertainty that one can fall from a bicycle or that a bicycle
can be involved in a collision. There is little uncertainty that a sharp
pencil can cause a puncture wound, or that changes in elevation can
be hazardous to negotiate. There is little uncertainty that bathtubs
can be slippery. However, the burning rate of cotton flannel is not
obvious unless it is directly observed.
A
latent risk factor is a condition or property of a product that
possesses the following characteristics :
- It is not
obvious to the consumer;
- It is inconsistent
with user expectations;
- It increases
the risk that users will not be able to respond to a hazardous condition
in time to avoid harm.
In
my opinion as a human factors specialist,
if consumers are not aware that a fabric is highly flammable, then that
fabric's flammability is a latent risk factor. (Note: Flammability is
not a hazard. A hazard can directly cause harm. Fire is a hazard. Flammability
is a factor that affects the probability of becoming exposed to the
hazard.) High priority should be given to alerting users to a product's
latent risk factors.
Conclusion
In my
opinion as a human factors specialist, there are few, if any, arguments
that carry weight for not alerting consumers that a fabric is highly
flammable. The cotton flannel nightgown worn by Jane Doe should have
contained a warning that alerted her that it was highly flammable and
to keep it away from open flame or sources of high heat. In addition,
it should have contained instructions as to what to do in case the garment
caught on fire. While it should be left to a jury to decide whether
a warning label would have prevented Ms. Doe's accident, in my opinion
as a human factors specialist, the failure to provide such a warning
denied her the opportunity to make an informed decision as to whether
or not to comply with its instructions.
|