The Massachusetts Appeals Court today tossed a Norwood couple's lawsuit against a local hardware chain for selling them a can of paint stripper that burst into flames after they stored it next to their basement water heater, giving both of them serious burns.

The court said the can was prominently labeled as both flammable and poisonous and that people need to use common sense when dealing with such chemicals:

[T]he label had a warning printed on the bottom that had the words "DANGER!" and "POISON!" in large capital letters, illustrated with a skull and crossbones. Following the words "DANGER!" and "POISON!" the label also stated in still capitalized, but somewhat smaller, letters "EXTREMELY FLAMMABLE. MAY BE FATAL OR CAUSE BLINDNESS IF SWALLOWED. VAPOR HARMFUL. SKIN AND EYE IRRITANT. Read other cautions and HEALTH HAZARD INFORMATION on back panel."

The couple charged the can was not labeled clearly and was defective and so "unreasonably dangerous." In part, they argued that because the label put "POISON!" ahead of flammability, and in capital letters no less, they were misled into thinking only that they should not drink the stuff, not that they should be worried about its vapors catching fire from a water-heater pilot light.

The court pondered this:

It is tempting to dismiss this argument out of hand as an undeniable departure from common usage or common sense, especially bearing in mind that a label for any product with more than one hazardous quality must, perforce, start somewhere.

.

But the justices actually looked at federal labeling requirements and found them complex enough to warrant deeper legal consideration and consultation with case law from federal courts. Then they concluded:

The label of the stripper in this case explicitly stated in capital letters in the principal display panel located on the front of the can that the stripper was "EXTREMELY FLAMMABLE." Further, it directed the reader to the back panel for more details regarding the substance's hazards, where vapor flammability was exhaustively explained.

Neither the FHSA nor the applicable regulations mandate that the statement of principal hazards also indicate specifically in what form (here, vapor) the substance is flammable. The principal hazards must be on the principal display panel, and flammability is a principal hazard. The fact that the stripper is flammable in different material states, or the fact that some states are more flammable than others, does not render each state a distinct "principal hazard." See ibid. We decline to adopt an interpretation of the FHSA, nowhere stated explicitly, that would require a label separately to warn the consumer of every material flammable state of a product, bearing in mind that such a listing would need to be all inclusive in order not to be attacked as misleading.

The justices also noted that the back of the can states:

VAPORS MAY CAUSE FLASH FIRE OR IGNITE EXPLOSIVELY. VAPORS MAY TRAVEL LONG DISTANCES TO OTHER AREAS AND ROOMS AWAY FROM WORK SITE. KEEP AWAY FROM HEAT, SPARKS, FLAME AND ALL OTHER SOURCES OF IGNITION....

• Complete ruling, Gertrude Namundi and another vs. Rocky's Ace Hardware, LLC and others

Christian Rodriguez, 35, is scheduled for arraignment in Roxbury District Court on charges he used a baseball bat to fatally bludgeon neighbor Roosevelt Harris in their Tremont Street building on Feb. 10, the Suffolk County District Attorney's office reports.

Boston Police responded to 1049 Tremont St. around 9:30 p.m. to find Harris with "blunt force trauma injuries." He was pronounced dead at the scene.

Rodriguez was already in custody, for an unrelated offense in Bedford, the DA's office says.

Innocent, etc.

The Boston Fire Department reports a fire that started around 5 p.m. at 7 Havre St. did an estimated $250,000 in damage. Two firefighters were treated for debris in their eyes. No residents were injured, the Red Cross and the mayor's office are assisting residents to find new places to stay.

The cause of the fire is under investigation; ISD is on scene looking at a possible illegal apartment in the basement.

The justice system gave Cornell Smith a second chance. And a third. And a fourth. And now he stands accused of murdering an innocent Northeastern student in a case of mistaken identity.

A Suffolk County grand jury indicted Smith on Friday on charges he murdered Rebecca Payne in her Parker Hill Avenue apartment in 2008 by shooting her in the knees and the chest. The Suffolk County District Attorney's office says Payne, a New Milford, CT resident who had a job at Legal Seafood, did not know Smith. Channel 7 reports police think Smith got Payne confused with another resident of the building, who looked like her - but who had some sort of gang affiliation.

The DA's office says it doesn't yet know when Smith, who lived on Hammond Street near the Northeastern campus, will be arraigned on the murder charge - in part because that will involve scheduling a flight from Wisconsin, where he's currently serving a 12 1/2 year federal sentence for cocaine trafficking for an arrest made on Stoughton Street in Dorchester three months after Payne's murder.

That sentence runs concurrently with a 12-to-15-year state sentence for a drug conviction stemming from an incident on Feb. 16, 2008.

Court records show Smith was on bail for the Feb. 16 incident when Payne's building superintendent found her body early on May 20 - several hours after nearby residents failed to call police after hearing several gunshots.

In August, three months after Payne's death, a Boston police officer watched Smith sell cocaine to somebody outside 49 Stoughton St. in Dorchester, which led to the federal drug-trafficking charge.

In 2009, he pleaded guilty to that charge in US District Court in Boston - not long after he was sentenced to 12 to 15 years in Suffolk Superior Court for the February arrest. US District Court Judge William Young then sentenced him to 12 1/2 years - as a career criminal - for the August arrest.

At his federal sentencing, assistant US Attorney Natasha Tidwell laid out Smith's criminal history:

Just from beginning at the age of 17, if not before, on his first drug offense he was sentenced to a term of two and-a-half years. He served nine months. The remainder was suspended. Shortly after his release he violated his probation, another drug offense. Served out the remainder of that term, sentenced again for a drug offense at the age of 19. In March 2004, at the age of 22, he received a sentence of three years and a day. Gets out for good conduct, comes out, reoffends in February 2008, which is the state offense for which he has just been sentenced to a term of 12 to 15 years. While he's out on bail for that offense he offends in this case.

In a memo to Young, Smith's lawyer, Paul Garrity, asked for leniency. He said Smith's life was just one bad break after another, starting with his birth to a single mother, and continuing with being surrounded by uncles and aunts with serious drug problems and drug records, a stepfather who routinely beat him, a drinking habit that began at age 8 and a coke habit he started at 13. As an adult, Garrity wrote, Smith was homeless when not incarcerated and had a long-term relationship with a woman who was herself a coke addict. Smith, Garrity wrote, sold drugs only to support his own habit:

[T]he defendant experienced a most difficult upbringing, which included significant physical abuse, and which set the stage for his own substance abuse from an early age and ultimately his engaging in criminal activity to support his dependence. The defendant had little chance to overcome the scars of this upbringing, and his efforts in substance abuse treatment have so far not been successful.

A second man, Billerica real-estate agent Michael Balba, 55, was charged with perjury for repeatedly lying to the grand jury investigating Payne's death, the DA's office says. He is scheduld for arraignment tomorrow.

Innocent, etc.