On April 15, the NAM and six other organizations filed an amicus letter urging the California Supreme Court to decline review of an appellate court ruling that holds that one component part manufacturer cannot be liable for failing to warn about alleged hazards from another manufacturer’s part that is added to the finished product. The hazardous product contained asbestos, and we oppose efforts by the plaintiffs’ bar to seek out manufacturers whose connection to asbestos-containing products is increasingly remote.
The case involves a man who allegedly developed mesothelioma while working in the Navy aboard the U.S.S. Hornet. Since the Navy is protected from liability by sovereign immunity, and virtually all asbestos manufacturers have been forced into bankruptcy, the plaintiff sued solvent component part manufacturers for asbestos in parts they never made, sold, installed or profited from.
Our brief supports well-established law that a manufacturer of one product has no duty to warn about the alleged hazards of another’s product. This is true even where the supplier knew its product may be integrated into another product that could cause harm. A duty to warn would be unmanageable and unsound public policy, and could result, for example, in a duty by a syringe manufacturer to warn of the danger of all drugs that it may be used to inject, or a bread manufacturer to warn of peanut allergies since a peanut butter and jelly sandwich is a foreseeable use of the bread. Such a rule would worsen the asbestos litigation problem, which appears to be continuing to grow in California.
On June 11, 2009, the California Supreme Court declined to review this case.