Products Liability: Product Defects

Warning Defect

Anderson v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp.

Supreme Court of California, 1991

53 Cal.3d 987, 810 P.2d 549, 281 Cal.Rptr. 528

Case Brief

Torts II

March 2013

Products Liability: Product Defects

Warning Defect

Case Name Anderson v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. Supreme Court of California, 1991 53 Cal.3d 987, 810 P.2d 549, 281 Cal.Rptr. 528

Facts - The Plaintiff worked as an electrician at the Long Beach Naval Shipyard for 35

years. - Defendant manufactured products containing asbestos:

o Preformed blocks o Cloth and cloth tape o Cement o Floor tiles

- During this work, Plaintiff allegedly was exposed to asbestos while working near others who were removing and installing insulation products aboard ships.

- Because of this exposure to asbestos, the plaintiff contracted asbestosis and other lung ailments

Procedural History

- Plaintiff filed suit against Defendant alleging that Plaintiff’s exposure to Defendant’s asbestos products resulted in his asbestosis and other lung ailments

- Trial: Verdict for the defendant - Trial Court granted a new trial - On appeal – the parties argued whether “state of the art” evidence should be

admitted into “failure to warn” cases - Supreme Court: Yes, admit “state of the art” evidence – shows whether defendant

knew or should have known of the defects Court of Appeals is Affirmed Send back to trial

Issue Should “state of the art” evidence be admitted in “failure to warn” cases? Holding Yes, defendant may introduce “state of the art” evidence in an action based on “failure to

warn” Reasoning Defendant contends

If knowledge is irrelevant in a failure to warn case, then a manufacturer’s liability is absolute. Plaintiff claims Imposing a knowledge requirement effectively adds a negligence standard to a strict liability case. The strict liability doctrine has incorporated several rules from negligence law: - A manufacturer defendant cannot effectively warn against something that is

unknowable. - Differences are still apparent between the strict liability standard applied in failure

to warn cases and a negligence standard. - Specifically, the reasonableness of a defendant’s failure to warn is immaterial **Manufacturer must provide a warning if it is or should be aware of potential dangers, BUT to impose liability for failure to warn when the manufacturer had no way of knowing of the potential danger is unjust.

Products Liability: Product Defects

Warning Defect

Policy: Strict Liability – Failure to Warn - Relieves an injured plaintiff of many of the onerous evidentiary burdens inherent in

negligence cause of action - Never intended to make the manufacturer or distributor of a product its insurer - “Warning defect” theory may be “rooted in negligence” to a greater extent than are

the manufacturing or design defect theories Manufacturing and design defects can be evaluated without reference to the conduct of the manufacturer Giving of a warning requires reference to the manufacturer’s conduct

- How can one warn of something that is unknowable? **If strict liability imposed without the knowledge requirement - Every product without warning that caused injury would impose liability on the

manufacturer. - Every product would then have warnings and the warnings would:

1. Mean nothing; and 2. Relieve the manufacturer of liability. We don’t want either one of these scenarios

Negligence – Failure to Warn - Requires a plaintiff to prove that a manufacturer or distributor did not warn of a

particular risk for reasons which fell below the acceptable standard of care i.e., what a reasonably prudent manufacturer would have known and warned about

Strict Liability Requirements – Failure to Warn - Knowledge or knowability is a component of strict liability for failure to warn - Requires a plaintiff to prove only that the defendant did not adequately warn of a

particular risk that was known or knowable in light of the generally recognized and prevailing best scientific and medical knowledge available at the time of manufacture and distribution

- Liability imposed on manufacturer when manufacturers failure to warn renders product unsafe based on information scientifically available to the manufacturer Acting reasonable will not necessarily absolve manufacturer of liability (negligence)

I guess where the court is going: The scientific and medical knowledge available at the time of the production of the product is necessary to show that the defendant knew or should have known of that knowledge – they will allow the “state of the art” evidence to provide liability (or not) based on the Failure to Warn claim.

Notes