Products Liability Law Reporter

The U.S. Supreme Court held that in the context of maritime torts, a product manufacturer has a duty to warn when its product requires subsequent incorporation of an additional part that the manufacturer knows or has reason to know will pose a danger to intended users, who will not realize the danger.

Kenneth McAfee and John DeVries both served in the U.S. Navy. The ships on which they served were equipped with blowers, pumps, and turbines that required asbestos insulation or parts to function. McAfee and DeVries were exposed to asbestos and later developed cancer and died. Their families sued various manufacturers who had supplied the equipment, without asbestos, alleging negligent failure to warn of the dangers of subsequently added asbestos in the integrated products.

The defendants removed the case to federal court, invoking maritime jurisdiction, and moved for summary judgment, arguing that they should not be held liable for harm resulting from a later-added third-party part. The district court granted the motions. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals vacated and remanded.

Affirming on other grounds, the Supreme Court noted that there are three approaches to deciding when a duty to warn arises where a manufacturer’s product requires later incorporation of a dangerous part to function as intended. The first approach is the foreseeability rule, the Court said, under which a manufacturer may be liable when it is foreseeable a product will be used with another product. The second approach, the bare metal defense, holds that where a manufacturer does not make, sell, or distribute a part or incorporate it into its product, the manufacturer may not be liable for harm resulting from the integrated product. Under the third approach, a manufacturer has a duty to warn when its product requires incorporation of a part and the manufacturer knows or has reason to know that the integrated product is likely to be dangerous for its intended use.

The Court adopted the third approach, finding it to be the most appropriate in the maritime tort context. The Court reasoned that a product manufacturer is in a better position than a parts manufacturer to warn of the danger from the integrated product. The product manufacturer knows the nature of the integrated product and is usually more aware of the risks associated with the integrated product, the Court said.

The Court acknowledged that issuing a warning costs time and money but noted that this burden is usually not significant when considered in light of a manufacturer’s existing duty to warn of a product’s dangers. The Court emphasized that manufacturers must warn not in cases of mere foreseeability, but when a product requires an integrated part in order to function correctly.

Rejecting the defendants’ argument that its approach will lead to excessive consumer warnings, the Court held that the rule it adopted will apply only in certain narrow circumstances.

Citation: Air & Liquid Sys. Corp. v. DeVries, 2019 WL 1245520 (Mar. 19, 2019).

Plaintiff counsel: AAJ member Denyse F. Clancy, Oakland, Calif.; Richard P. Myers, AAJ member Robert E. Paul, AAJ member Alan I. Reich, and Patrick J. Myers, all of Philadelphia; AAJ member Jonathan Ruckdeschel, Ellicott City, Md.; Thomas C. Goldstein, Bethesda, Md.; and AAJ member William W.C. Harty, Newport News, Va.

Amici curiae counsel: AAJ member Elise Sanguinetti, Emeryville, Calif.; and AAJ member Jeffrey R. White, Washington, D.C.