Third Circuit Invalidates 'Bare Metal' Defense in Asbestos Cases
If a manufacturer ships an engine without a gasket and the buyer replaces it with an asbestos-laden part, is the manufacturer liable for any resulting injuries? The Third Circuit said yes.
October 04, 2017 at 02:37 PM
4 minute read
If a manufacturer ships an engine without a gasket and the buyer replaces it with an asbestos-laden part, is the manufacturer liable for any resulting injuries? In an apparent issue of first impression, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit said yes.
The court's decision came in the lawsuits of two widows of U.S. Navy sailors who contracted cancer from exposure to asbestos. In its ruling, the court scrapped the bare-metal defense—an argument that says if a manufacturer makes a product without asbestos, and asbestos is later added to it, the manufacturer cannot be held liable for the consequences.
Third Circuit Judge Thomas I. Vanaskie wrote in the court's opinion that the U.S. Supreme Court has not addressed the issue.
“In that void, we survey bedrock principles of maritime law and conclude that they permit a manufacturer of even a bare-metal product to be held liable for asbestos-related injuries when circumstances indicate the injury was a reasonably foreseeable result of the manufacturer's actions—at least in the context of a negligence claim,” Vanaskie said.
“The district court had instead applied the bright-line rule approach and entered summary judgment against the plaintiffs,” the judge continued. “We will vacate the entry of summary judgment on the plaintiffs' negligence claims, affirm the entry of summary judgment on the plaintiffs' product liability claims (which we conclude were abandoned on appeal), and will remand, for further proceedings.”
Richard P. Myers of Paul, Reich & Myers represented the plaintiffs, Roberta G. Devries and Shirley McAfee.
“We believe that the Third Circuit got it right when it ruled that machinery manufacturers are responsible in negligence for asbestos-containing wear products used in their machinery,” Myers said in an email. “The court validated maritime law's 'special solicitude for the safety and protection of sailors.' We look forward to trying these cases in the district court on remand.”
Shay Dvoretzky of Jones Day argued the case for the manufacturing defendants and did not respond to a request for comment.
The central debate on the bare-metal defense, according to Vanaskie, hinged on the foreseeability of harm caused by a defendant's product and then went into whether that foreseeability was governed by rules or standards.
“A rule is a legal directive that attempts to capture a background principle into an easy-to-apply form that is predictable and efficient,” like a speed limit, Vanaskie said. The downside, he noted, is that they are imperfect; for example, drivers can be punished for speeding safely while slow drivers cannot even if they “amble along haphazardly.”
“A standard, on the other hand, collapses the background principle into the actual legal directive, resulting in better accuracy and 'fit' with the underlying purpose, and fewer errors of over- and under-inclusion,” but with the drawback of being less predictable and efficient, Vanaskie said.
However, in the case of maritime law, the Third Circuit favored the standard approach.
“The special solicitude for the safety and protection of sailors is dispositive, because it counsels us to follow the standard-based approach, and none of the other principles weigh heavily in either direction,” Vanaskie said. “The standard-based approach is the one we will therefore follow: foreseeability is the touchstone of the bare-metal defense; a manufacturer of a bare-metal product may be held liable for a plaintiff's injuries suffered from later-added asbestos-containing materials if the facts show the plaintiff's injuries were a reasonably foreseeable result of the manufacturer's failure to provide a reasonable and adequate warning.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllSupreme Court Rebuffs GOP Request to Reject 'Thousands' of Pennsylvania Provisional Ballots
Hearing on Krasner's Lawsuit Against Musk Hits Road Block With Last-Minute Jurisdictional Dispute
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Abbott, Mead Johnson Win Defense Verdict Over Preemie Infant Formula
- 3Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
- 4Greenberg Traurig Initiates String of Suits Following JPMorgan Chase's 'Infinite Money Glitch'
- 5Data-Driven Legal Strategies
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250