## Facts

- William P. Aubin worked in residential construction and was exposed to dust from drywall joint compounds and ceiling texture sprays containing Union Carbide’s SG–210 “Calidria” asbestos.
- Aubin developed malignant peritoneal mesothelioma and alleged asbestos exposure from SG–210 was a cause.
- Aubin sued Union Carbide for strict liability (design defect), strict liability (failure to warn), and negligence.
- A jury found Union Carbide liable and awarded a multi-million dollar judgment.
- The Third District Court of Appeal reversed, applying a Restatement (Third) risk-utility approach (including a reasonable-alternative-design requirement), finding insufficient causation evidence, and concluding the failure-to-warn instructions were misleading for not covering a learned-intermediary theory.
- The Florida Supreme Court accepted discretionary review based on conflict with Florida precedent applying Restatement (Second) § 402A and consumer expectations.

## Issues

1. Whether Florida strict-liability design-defect claims are governed by Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A and the consumer-expectations test, or by Restatement (Third) risk-utility principles requiring proof of a reasonable alternative design.
2. Whether the evidence was legally sufficient to support the jury’s finding that the alleged defect in Union Carbide’s asbestos product caused Aubin’s injury.
3. Whether the trial court committed reversible error on the failure-to-warn claim by declining to give Union Carbide’s requested learned-intermediary jury instruction.

## Decision

- The Florida Supreme Court quashed the district court’s decision and remanded with directions to reinstate the trial court’s judgment for Aubin.
- The court reaffirmed that Florida uses Restatement (Second) § 402A and the consumer-expectations test for strict-liability design-defect claims and rejected adoption of the Restatement (Third) reasonable-alternative-design requirement.
- The court held the record contained sufficient evidence to support the jury’s causation finding and the district court improperly reweighed evidence.
- The court held refusal of Union Carbide’s proposed learned-intermediary instruction was not reversible error because the requested instruction did not accurately state Florida law and the instructions given adequately stated the duty to warn.

## Legal Principles

- Florida strict products liability for design defect follows Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A and the consumer-expectations test (whether the product is unreasonably dangerous beyond ordinary consumer contemplation).
- Florida does not require a design-defect plaintiff to prove a reasonable alternative design as an element of strict liability.
- An appellate court may not overturn a jury’s causation finding where competent, substantial evidence supports it; credibility and weight of evidence are for the jury.
- A trial court need not give a requested jury instruction that misstates the law; the question is whether the charge as a whole fairly and accurately states the governing law.

## Conclusion

The Florida Supreme Court reinstated Aubin’s verdict, reaffirming that strict-liability design-defect claims in Florida are judged by consumer expectations under Restatement (Second) § 402A, rejecting a Restatement (Third) risk-utility and alternative-design requirement, and holding that the jury’s causation finding and the failure-to-warn instructions should not have been disturbed on appeal.


Aubin v. Union Carbide Corp., 177 So. 3d 489 (Fla. 2015)