16 C.F.R. § 1205.6

Warning label for reel-type and rotary power mowers

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) General. Walk-behind power lawn mowers shall be labeled on the blade housing or, in the absence of a blade housing, on other blade shielding or on an adjacent supporting structure or assembly, with the warning label shown in Fig. 7. The label shall be at least 3.25 in (82.5 mm) high and 4 in (102 mm) wide, and the lettering and symbol shall retain the same size relation to each other and to the label as shown in Fig. 7.

(b) Rotary mowers. Walk-behind rotary mowers shall have one label as shown in Fig. 7, on the blade housing. The label shall be located as close as possible to any discharge opening, or, if there is no discharge opening, in a position that is conspicuous to an operator in the normal operating position.

(c) Reel-type mowers. Walk-behind power reel-type mowers shall have one label as shown in Fig. 7, located as close to the center of the cutting width of the blade as possible. However, in the absence of a suitable mounting surface near the center of the cutting width, the label shall be placed on the nearest suitable mounting surface to the center of the cutting width.

[44 FR 10024, Feb. 15, 1979, as amended at 45 FR 86417, Dec. 31, 1980]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases, 1980–2000 · leading case: Southland Mower Co. v. Consum. Prod. Saf. Comm'n, John O. Hayward v. Consum. Prod. Saf. Comm'n, 619 F.2d 499 (5th Cir. 1980).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Southland Mower Co. v. Consum. Prod. Saf. Comm'n, John O. Hayward v. Consum. Prod. Saf. Comm'n, 619 F.2d 499 (5th Cir. 1980). · cites it 2× “10029 , and a requirement, applicable to both rotary and reel-type mowers, that the product have a label of specified design to warn of the danger of blade contact, 16 C.F.R. § 1205.6 , 44 Fed. Reg. 10029 -30.”

Cortez v. MTD Prods., Inc., 927 F. Supp. 386 (N.D. Cal. 1996). · cites it 2× “See 16 C.F.R. § 1205.6 (1995). Counsel for plaintiff conceded at oral argument that the label on this mower complied with the federal regulations (that indisputably were in effect at the time of manufacture) that prescribed requirements for warnings about the dangers associated…”

prod.liab.rep. (Cch) P 14,451 Brian Moe Thomas Moe Saundra Moe v. Mtd Prods., Inc., 73 F.3d 179 (8th Cir. 1995). “The risk of injury contemplated by such a warning is the same as that addressed by the labelling requirements in the Mower Standard — injury to the hands by the cutting blade.”

Leipart v. Guardian Indus., Inc., 234 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2000). “See 16 C.F.R. § 1205.6 (a). The court relied on the existing federal standard to support its conclusion that a state-law safety labeling requirement was pre-empted.”

Frazier v. Heckingers, 96 F. Supp. 2d 486 (E.D. Pa. 2000). “See 16 C.F.R. § 1205.6 (“Warning label for reel-type and rotary power mowers”).”

Brian Moe v. MTD Prods. (8th Cir. 1995). “16 C.F.R. § 1205.6 . The Moes' failure to warn claim suggests that MTD should have warned consumers that the BBC cable might fray.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.