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
- 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?
- 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.