Subsequent Application of Asbestos: Whose Duty to Warn?
In Merrill v. Leslie Control, Inc., a California appellate court reversed and set aside a verdict in favor of plaintiffs and held that a defendant “owed no duty to warn against dangers in products, used in association with or as replacement parts of its valves, which it did not manufacture or supply.”
Richard Merrill filed suit for his mesothelioma that was allegedly caused by exposed to asbestos during his service in the Navy. The jury found that Leslie Controls valves were defective because it failed to warn of potential risks, the valves were defectively designed, and Leslie Controls was negligent.
Merrill had worked on Leslie Control valves that were used on ships on which he served. The valves had asbestos-containing internal gaskets which Leslie Controls did not manufacture. Leslie Controls instructed purchasers of its valves to insulate around its valves but it did not provide insulation and its field engineers were aware that asbestos insulation was applied to and removed from its valves and were even present when it was done. Leslie Controls also provided manuals for their valves and was aware that packing would be removed or added during maintenance and the manuals contained no warning of the dangers of asbestos.
The appellate court found that there was no evidence that Leslie Controls manufactured or supplied any asbestos-containing internal packing and gaskets to which Merrill was exposed, it did not manufacture or supply gaskets attached to the exterior of its valves, and it did not supply or manufacture asbestos-containing insulation used around the valves. Thus the appellate court held that Leslie Controls was not liable in strict liability “for failing to warn of hazards associated with the handling of these products.”
The Court stated that a manufacturer’s duty to warn is limited to its own products. The court also rejected liability premised on the component parts doctrine because Merrill could not provide evidence he removed the old internal packing that had been supplied by Leslie Controls in the valves.
The appellate court then considered and rejected Merrill’s negligence cause of action that alleged Leslie Controls failed to warn of the hazards of asbestos in asbestos-containing products it supplied to the Navy.
In its analysis, the appellate court stated that Leslie Controls manufactured its valves with asbestos-containing internal gaskets and packing, and knew that asbestos-containing flange gaskets and insulation would be used in association with its valves. However, Merrill’s exposure occurred many years after Leslie Controls delivered new valves to the Navy. According to the appellate court, “[w]hat must be foreseeable is the harm to the plaintiff, not the mere fact that asbestos-containing materials would be used with [Leslie Controls’s] equipment.” In addition, if any such duty to warn was imposed on a manufacturer of products produced or supplied by another, it would “extend potential liability for failure to warn to persons far outside of the distribution chain of the defective product.”
The California Court of Appeals, Second Appellate District, Division Three, concluded that “[i]mposing tort liability for failing to warn of danger in asbestos-containing products associated with the use and repair of Leslie Controls valves, when there is no evidence that Leslie Controls manufactured or supplied the products to which Merrill was exposed long after it supplied the Leslie Controls valves, would not serve the policy of preventing future harm. Leslie Controls had limited, even negligible ability to prevent future harm by warning about future use of products which it did not manufacture, supply, or control.”
