Products Liability Law Reporter

A federal district court held that John Crane Inc. may be liable to a former machinist mate who was diagnosed as having malignant mesothelioma almost 60 years after serving in the U.S. Navy.

From 1961 to 1968, Arnold Pritt worked as a machinist mate while serving in the Navy aboard the USS Purdy. During that time, he installed compressed asbestos sheet gaskets and removed and replaced asbestos-containing John Crane valve and pump packing in the engine room. Pritt was diagnosed as having malignant mesothelioma in his 70s. He and his wife sued John Crane Inc., alleging negligence, failure to warn, design defect, and breach of express and implied warranties. The defendant removed the case to federal court and moved for summary judgment.

Denying the motion, the district court considered the defendant’s argument that the plaintiffs’ failure-to-warn and design defect claims were barred by the government contractor defense, an affirmative defense on which it bore the burden of proof at trial. Citing case law, the court noted that a defendant asserting the defense in a failure-to-warn case must prove that the government exercised its discretion and approved certain warnings, the contractor provided the warnings required by the government, and the contractor warned the government about dangers in the equipment’s use that were known to the contractor but not to the government. Applying the test here, the court found that the defendant satisfied the third element because evidence from both parties demonstrated that the Navy had been aware since the 1920s that asbestos was dangerous, while the plaintiffs were unable to show that John Crane’s knowledge of the danger predated 1943.

Nevertheless, the court said, there are genuine issues of material fact regarding the first and second prongs. For example, although published military standards show that the Navy had promulgated some form of labeling requirements, there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the Navy required asbestos warnings and prohibited additional warnings, the court found. Without resolution of that issue, the court said, it is not possible to determine whether John Crane had provided the approved warnings, making summary judgment unwarranted. Similarly, regarding the plaintiffs’ design defect claim, the defendant failed to meet the first two prongs in that the parties’ experts disagree as to whether the military specifications for gaskets and packing explicitly required asbestos in their composition. Therefore, summary judgment on the design defect claim is also inappropriate, the court held.

Turning to the defendant’s derivative sovereign immunity argument, the court noted that government contractors may not be sued if the government authorized the contractor’s actions and validly conferred that authorization. Sovereign immunity is not absolute, the court added, and liability of an agent for its own negligence is firmly embedded within the law. Thus, the court held that absent resolution of the plaintiffs’ negligence claim, summary judgment for the defendant under a sovereign immunity defense was also improper.

Citation: Pritt v. John Crane Inc., 2022 WL 13933904 (D. Mass. Oct. 21, 2022).

Plaintiff counsel: AAJ members Christopher P. Duffy, Salem, Mass.; and Mark A. Alonzo, Tampa, Fla.

Comment: In Crossland v. Huntington Ingalls, Inc., 2022 WL 11082387 (E.D. La. Oct. 19, 2022), Linda Crossland alleged that her husband, who constructed and repaired various vessels at Avondale shipyards in the early 1970s, unknowingly brought asbestos dust into the family home on his work clothes. Crossland further alleged that her exposure to asbestos dust led to her development of mesothelioma in 2020. She sued various defendants, including Huntington Ingalls Inc. (Avondale) and Hopeman Brothers, Inc., alleging negligent failure to warn and products liability. Avondale removed the case to federal court, arguing that it had been acting under an officer of the United States and that it was entitled to government contractor immunity and derivative sovereign immunity. Hopeman also asserted the government contractor defense. The plaintiff moved for summary judgment. Granting the motion, the district court found that the defendants failed to establish their entitlement to immunity. The fact that the government had required warnings about radiation and flammable liquids and provided a maximum threshold for asbestos exposure does not indicate the government exercised meaningful discretion regarding whether to issue asbestos-related warnings. The record indicates that no governmental discretion was exercised, the court said. The court also rejected the defense argument that immunity attached because the government authorized and directed their use of asbestos. This argument, the court said, mischaracterizes the claims of the plaintiff, who does not dispute that the government required the defendants to use asbestos but instead sought to hold the defendants liable for failing to properly protect workers from the asbestos they were directed to use. AAJ members Mickey P. Landry, Frank J. Swarr, Matthew C. Clark, Jefferson B. Goldman, and Philip C. Hoffman, all of New Orleans, La., represented the plaintiff.