## Facts

- Clarence Borel worked as an industrial insulation worker for about 33 years, regularly handling and cutting asbestos-containing insulation in refineries, shipyards, and industrial plants.
- His work exposed him to heavy asbestos dust from products made by multiple defendant manufacturers.
- Borel understood the dust was irritating and “bad,” but he did not understand it could cause serious or fatal disease.
- Medical and industrial literature had documented asbestos health hazards for decades, yet defendants did not provide adequate warnings to insulation workers or adequately test product effects on workers.
- Borel developed asbestosis and mesothelioma and died before trial; his widow and heirs continued the action under Texas wrongful-death law.
- A jury returned a verdict for plaintiffs on strict products liability based on inadequate warnings; defendants appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether asbestos insulation manufacturers had a strict-liability duty to warn insulation workers as ultimate users of known or knowable asbestos hazards.
2. Whether asbestos insulation products were unreasonably dangerous and defective because warnings were inadequate or did not reach users.
3. Whether Borel’s awareness that dust was “bad” and his continued work established assumption of risk or contributory negligence barring recovery.
4. How causation and liability apply when multiple manufacturers’ products cumulatively contribute over time to an indivisible asbestos-related disease.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit affirmed the judgment for plaintiffs.
- The court held that failure to provide adequate warnings of latent asbestos dangers can render a product defective and unreasonably dangerous under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A.
- The court rejected the contention that warning intermediaries alone necessarily satisfied the duty; warnings must be reasonably calculated to reach the ultimate user and convey the seriousness of the risk.
- The court held that each manufacturer whose product was a substantial contributing factor to Borel’s cumulative exposure could be held liable for the resulting indivisible injury, without requiring proof of precise apportionment.
- The court held that assumption of risk was not established because Borel did not have actual, subjective knowledge of the specific grave dangers (including fatal disease), and contributory negligence premised on failure to discover latent defects did not bar strict-liability recovery.

## Legal Principles

- Under § 402A, a product may be defective and “unreasonably dangerous” because of inadequate warnings, even if properly manufactured.
- Manufacturers are charged with expert knowledge and a duty to keep abreast of scientific and medical knowledge concerning product hazards.
- In failure-to-warn cases, the warning must be adequate in content and reasonably calculated to reach the ultimate user so the user can make an informed choice about exposure.
- For cumulative, long-latency diseases caused by repeated exposures, causation may be satisfied by proof that a defendant’s product substantially contributed to the total exposure producing an indivisible harm; exact allocation among defendants is not required.
- Assumption of risk requires actual, subjective awareness of the specific danger and a voluntary decision to encounter it; generalized awareness that dust is unpleasant or harmful is insufficient.

## Conclusion

The court sustained strict products-liability recovery for asbestos disease where manufacturers failed to provide adequate warnings that would reach insulation workers, and it permitted liability against each manufacturer whose product substantially contributed to cumulative exposure causing an indivisible injury, while rejecting assumption-of-risk and similar defenses absent proof the worker understood the specific grave hazards.


Borel v. Fibreboard Paper Prods. Corp., 493 F.2d 1076 (5th Cir. 1973)