The NAM joined with 7 other organizations urging the Supreme Court of Washington to reverse a lower court ruling that held a valve manufacturer liable for failing to disclose the hazards that arose when the Navy covered the valves with asbestos insulation and installed another company’s asbestos gaskets. Under common law, manufacturers are only liable for hazards in their own products. We opposed the court’s creation of a new duty to warn about hazards a manufacturer does not produce or put in its products. Such a duty would require syringe manufacturers to warn of the drugs that might be used in the syringe, or lighter manufacturers to warn of the hazards of smoking, or bread or jelly manufacturers to warn of the foreseeable risk of peanut allergies in peanut butter and jelly sandwiches. The lower court’s rationale – foreseeability – is unsound policy and invites a flood of new product liability cases, particularly involving asbestos. The duty to warn should be placed on the party in the best position to know the risk, and any economic loss should be borne by the party who caused it.
We are pleased to report that on 12/11/08, the Washington Supreme Court reversed the appellate court and held that makers of non-hazardous component parts have no duty to warn about asbestos products made by others and attached to the components post-sale. The court stated that its decision was based on the majority rule in product liability law that only those within a product's chain of distribution (such as a dealer or distributor) or those who manufacture a product have a duty to warn of the dangers associated with its use.