## Facts

- Workers and their family members alleged injury and wrongful death from long-term exposure to asbestos dust from defendants’ asbestos-containing products.
- Plaintiffs alleged diseases including asbestosis and mesothelioma and claimed defendants failed to provide adequate warnings about asbestos hazards.
- Plaintiffs sued under strict products liability on a failure-to-warn theory.
- Defendants asserted a “state-of-the-art” defense, claiming the relevant health risks were unknown and not scientifically discoverable when the products were marketed and used.
- The trial court denied plaintiffs’ motion to strike the defense; appellate leave was denied; the state supreme court granted interlocutory review.

## Issues

1. In a strict products liability failure-to-warn action, may a defendant avoid liability by proving the hazard was unknown and scientifically undiscoverable at the time of manufacture and sale?
2. Is the manufacturer’s knowledge or scientific discoverability of the risk relevant to defectiveness in strict liability failure-to-warn claims?

## Decision

- The court reversed the trial court’s order and struck the state-of-the-art defense.
- In strict liability failure-to-warn cases, defendants may not defend on the ground that the risk was undiscovered or scientifically undiscoverable when the product was marketed.
- For trial, the central inquiry is whether a warning would have made the product safer without reducing the product’s utility.
- The matter was remanded for further proceedings consistent with these rulings.

## Legal Principles

- Strict products liability focuses on the condition of the product rather than the manufacturer’s fault; culpability and due care concepts are not controlling.
- In strict liability failure-to-warn claims, the manufacturer is treated as if it knew of the product’s dangers, regardless of the then-existing state of scientific knowledge.
- A state-of-the-art showing is not a defense to strict liability failure-to-warn claims in this asbestos litigation.
- Policy goals supporting the rule include loss allocation to product sellers and risk distribution through pricing and insurance rather than leaving losses on injured users.
- Excluding state-of-the-art avoids highly technical disputes over historical scientific knowledge and prevents importing negligence-style foreseeability into strict liability.

## Conclusion

The court held that, in strict liability failure-to-warn asbestos cases, a manufacturer cannot rely on state-of-the-art to deny a duty to warn; knowledge of risk is imputed, and the case proceeds on whether an adequate warning would have increased product safety without diminishing utility.


Beshada v. Johns-Manville Prods. Corp., 90 N.J. 191, 447 A.2d 539 (1982)