Between 1958 and 1966, the plaintiff in this case worked with asbestos-containing products that had been ordered through an industrial supply house, Pittsburgh Gage and Supply Company. He later developed mesothelioma and sued the supply house and others for failing to warn him about the risks of asbestos. A defense expert was effectively barred from testifying about the state-of-the-art at the time, and a judgment of $1.4 million was awarded.
The NAM and other business and insurance associations filed an amicus brief arguing that the newest Restatement of Torts supplies the proper standard to apply in failure-to-warn cases: manufacturers or distributors should only be liable for failing to warn of foreseeable risks. They should not be strictly liable for failing to warn about potential injuries that are too remote or that were not known or should not have been known at the time. Warnings about risks that are unknowable or speculative are likely to produce over-warning, reducing the effectiveness of legitimate warnings.
On June 16, 2009, the court dismissed the appeal as "improvidently granted," ducking the issue. A strong dissent from the Chief Justice and another judge detailed the core negligence and strict liability principles at issue in product liability cases like this.