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
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.