A respirator manufacturer was sued by a party alleging that the company had a duty to warn individuals who clean or otherwise handle the equipment about asbestos hazards from products made, sold or supplied by third parties. The trial court rejected the claim, and the NAM filed an amicus brief in this appeal supporting that result. We argued that liability only applies to companies that are in the chain of distribution of a product, where they have some measure of control and responsibility. There is no claim in this case that the respirators had any design defect or manufacturing flaw.
They should not be held liable for warning about the hazards of others’ products, even if those hazards are foreseeable. The courts have not and should not extend negligence liability law without limit, and a manufacturer of protective equipment should not have to warn about the risks of the products of others from which their own products provide protection. Fox example, it is one thing to require manufacturers of rubber gloves to warn about the potential for latex allergies associated with their own products; it is quite another to require them to warn of the dangers of numerous chemicals and cleansers made by others that the gloves provide a barrier against. We cited a variety of other examples as well. Imposing such a duty to warn about other products would place a significant burden that the companies are not in the best position to bear.
In addition, there should be no liability when a non-defective product functions as it is designed to.
Our brief also explained the adverse impact that expanding liability rules would have on companies already being sued as part of the wave of asbestos litigation. More than 10,000 companies have already been named as asbestos defendants, and nontraditional asbestos defendants now account for more than half of asbestos expenditures. Moreover, targeting respirator manufacturers with these kinds of claims threatens to have a broader adverse effect on health and safety by creating strong disincentives to continue to produce the devices for sale in the United States.
On 8/12/12, the court reversed, holding that the “duty at issue is to warn of the danger of asbestos exposure inherent in the use and maintenance of the defendant manufacturers’ own products, the respirators.” (emphasis in original) By establishing this duty, the court requires that all manufacturers who produce equipment (even those not involved in the production of asbestos containing products) that might expose the user to asbestos from other users or products, to warn of hazards and take safety precautions. A strong disseting opinion warned that requiring a manufacturer to list all the possible consequences that can result from using its product would lead it to warnings against everything, reducing the effectiveness of all of them.