Products Liability: Product Defects Warning Defect

Anderson v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. Supreme Court of California, 1991

53 Cal.3d 987, 810 P.2d 549, 281 Cal.Rptr. 528

Case Brief Torts II March 2013

Products Liability: Product Defects Warning Defect Case Name Anderson v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. Supreme Court of California, 1991 53 Cal.3d 987, 810 P.2d 549, 281 Cal.Rptr. 528 Facts The Plaintiff worked as an electrician at the Long Beach Naval Shipyard for 35 years. Defendant manufactured products containing asbestos: o Preformed blocks o Cloth and cloth tape o Cement o Floor tiles During this work, Plaintiff allegedly was exposed to asbestos while working near others who were removing and installing insulation products aboard ships. Because of this exposure to asbestos, the plaintiff contracted asbestosis and other lung ailments Plaintiff filed suit against Defendant alleging that Plaintiffs exposure to Defendants asbestos products resulted in his asbestosis and other lung ailments Trial: Verdict for the defendant Trial Court granted a new trial On appeal the parties argued whether state of the art evidence should be admitted into failure to warn cases Supreme Court: Yes, admit state of the art evidence shows whether defendant knew or should have known of the defects Court of Appeals is Affirmed Send back to trial

Procedural History -

Issue Holding Reasoning

Should state of the art evidence be admitted in failure to warn cases? Yes, defendant may introduce state of the art evidence in an action based on failure to warn Defendant contends If knowledge is irrelevant in a failure to warn case, then a manufacturers liabi lity is absolute. Plaintiff claims Imposing a knowledge requirement effectively adds a negligence standard to a strict liability case. The strict liability doctrine has incorporated several rules from negligence law: - A manufacturer defendant cannot effectively warn against something that is unknowable. - Differences are still apparent between the strict liability standard applied in failure to warn cases and a negligence standard. - Specifically, the reasonableness of a defendants failure to warn is immaterial **Manufacturer must provide a warning if it is or should be aware of potential dangers, BUT to impose liability for failure to warn when the manufacturer had no way of knowing of the potential danger is unjust.

Products Liability: Product Defects Warning Defect Policy: Strict Liability Failure to Warn - Relieves an injured plaintiff of many of the onerous evidentiary burdens inherent in negligence cause of action - Never intended to make the manufacturer or distributor of a product its insurer - Warning defect theory may be rooted in negligence to a greater extent than are the manufacturing or design defect theories Manufacturing and design defects can be evaluated without reference to the conduct of the manufacturer Giving of a warning requires reference to the manufacturers conduct - How can one warn of something that is unknowable? **If strict liability imposed without the knowledge requirement - Every product without warning that caused injury would impose liability on the manufacturer. - Every product would then have warnings and the warnings would: 1. Mean nothing; and 2. Relieve the manufacturer of liability. We dont want either one of these scenarios Negligence Failure to Warn - Requires a plaintiff to prove that a manufacturer or distributor did not warn of a particular risk for reasons which fell below the acceptable standard of care i.e., what a reasonably prudent manufacturer would have known and warned about Strict Liability Requirements Failure to Warn - Knowledge or knowability is a component of strict liability for failure to warn - Requires a plaintiff to prove only that the defendant did not adequately warn of a particular risk that was known or knowable in light of the generally recognized and prevailing best scientific and medical knowledge available at the time of manufacture and distribution - Liability imposed on manufacturer when manufacturers failure to warn renders product unsafe based on information scientifically available to the manufacturer Acting reasonable will not necessarily absolve manufacturer of liability (negligence) I guess where the court is going: The scientific and medical knowledge available at the time of the production of the product is necessary to show that the defendant knew or should have known of that knowledge they will allow the state of the art evidence to provide liability (or not) based on the Failure to Warn claim. Notes