## Facts

- Alvin Halphen allegedly developed a fatal asbestos-related disease after exposure to asbestos-containing products manufactured or sold by Johns-Manville Sales Corporation.
- Emma Jean Halphen, his widow, filed a wrongful death and products liability action under Louisiana law.
- A federal jury found for Mrs. Halphen on a strict products liability theory and awarded damages.
- Johns-Manville argued it could not be strictly liable because it did not know and reasonably could not have known of the product’s inherent danger at the relevant time.
- On appeal, the Fifth Circuit granted rehearing en banc, vacated an earlier panel decision, and certified to the Louisiana Supreme Court whether lack of knowability bars strict liability for injuries caused by an unreasonably dangerous product.
- The Louisiana Supreme Court answered that, in specified strict liability categories, the manufacturer’s lack of knowledge is irrelevant.
- The Fifth Circuit then resolved the appeal consistent with that answer.

## Issues

1. Under Louisiana strict products liability, may a manufacturer be held liable for injuries caused by an unreasonably dangerous product when the manufacturer did not know and reasonably could not have known of the product’s inherent danger?
2. Does Louisiana strict products liability permit a “state-of-the-art” or knowledge-based defense where the product is unreasonably dangerous per se or unreasonably dangerous in construction or composition?

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit upheld the judgment for Mrs. Halphen.
- The court applied Louisiana law as explained by the Louisiana Supreme Court in response to the certified question.
- The court held that Johns-Manville could be held strictly liable even if it neither knew nor reasonably could have known of the danger, so long as the product fit within the categories where knowledge is immaterial (unreasonably dangerous per se, or unreasonably dangerous in construction or composition).

## Legal Principles

- In Louisiana strict products liability, if the plaintiff proves the product was unreasonably dangerous per se (including by defective design) or unreasonably dangerous in construction or composition, the manufacturer may be held liable even though it did not know and reasonably could not have known of the danger.
- A product is unreasonably dangerous per se if a reasonable person would conclude that the product’s danger-in-fact, whether foreseeable or not, outweighs its utility.
- For products that are unreasonably dangerous per se, and for construction/composition defects, the manufacturer’s knowledge or reasonable knowability of the danger is not relevant to liability.
- Manufacturer knowledge is material only for products that are “merely unreasonably dangerous,” where a broader risk-utility inquiry may consider knowledge-related factors.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit affirmed a wrongful-death strict liability verdict under Louisiana law, holding that a manufacturer’s lack of actual or constructive knowledge does not bar recovery when the product is unreasonably dangerous per se or defective in construction or composition.


Halphen v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 788 F.2d 274 (5th Cir. 1986)