Air & Liquid Sys. Corp. v. DeVries
139 S.Ct. 986, 203 L.Ed.2d 373 (2019)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under maritime tort law, a manufacturer has a duty to warn when its product requires the incorporation of a dangerous part from a third party, the manufacturer knows or has reason to know the integrated product is likely to be dangerous for its intended use, and the manufacturer has no reason to believe the end users will realize that danger.
Facts:
- Kenneth McAfee and John DeVries served in the U.S. Navy on ships equipped with pumps, blowers, and turbines.
- Five defendant companies, including Air and Liquid Systems Corp., manufactured this equipment.
- The equipment required asbestos insulation or asbestos-containing parts to function as intended.
- The manufacturers often delivered the equipment to the Navy in a 'bare-metal' state, without the required asbestos components.
- The Navy later added the asbestos insulation and parts to the equipment on board the ships.
- The equipment, when used as intended with the asbestos, released asbestos fibers into the air.
- McAfee and DeVries were exposed to these asbestos fibers while serving on the ships and later developed terminal cancer as a result.
Procedural Posture:
- The families of Kenneth McAfee and John DeVries sued equipment manufacturers in Pennsylvania state court.
- The manufacturers removed the cases to the U.S. District Court, invoking federal maritime jurisdiction.
- The manufacturers filed motions for summary judgment, asserting the 'bare-metal defense'.
- The District Court (the trial court) granted summary judgment in favor of the manufacturers.
- The plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
- The Third Circuit vacated the District Court's judgment and remanded the cases for further proceedings.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a circuit split on the issue.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a manufacturer have a duty to warn, under maritime law, about the dangers of a hazardous part added by a third party when the manufacturer's product requires that part for its intended function?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Kavanaugh
Yes. In the maritime tort context, a product manufacturer has a duty to warn when (i) its product requires incorporation of a part, (ii) the manufacturer knows or has reason to know that the integrated product is likely to be dangerous for its intended uses, and (iii) the manufacturer has no reason to believe that the product's users will realize that danger. The Court rejected both the broad foreseeability test and the defendant-friendly 'bare-metal defense.' It reasoned that when a manufacturer's product requires a dangerous part to function, there is no persuasive reason to distinguish that situation from one where the product is dangerous on its own. The product manufacturer is often in a better position to understand the risks of the integrated product than a generic parts manufacturer. This rule is reinforced by maritime law's 'special solicitude for the welfare' of sailors.
Dissenting - Justice Gorsuch
No. A manufacturer should not have a duty to warn about the dangers of another manufacturer's product. The majority's new three-part test lacks roots in traditional common law, which restricts a manufacturer's duty to warn to the characteristics of its own product. The traditional rule is more efficient, as it places the duty on the manufacturer of the dangerous component, who is the least-cost avoider of the risk. The Court's new standard will lead to consumer confusion from overwarning, is vague and difficult to apply, and unfairly imposes a new, retroactive duty on manufacturers who complied with the law decades ago.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a significant, new federal common law rule for duty-to-warn claims under maritime jurisdiction, charting a middle course between the circuit split on the 'bare-metal defense.' By rejecting both a pure foreseeability standard and an absolute defense, the Court created a tailored test focused on whether a product requires a dangerous component to function. While the opinion explicitly limits its holding to the maritime context, its reasoning on integrated products and the manufacturer's superior knowledge may influence state courts grappling with similar products liability issues outside of maritime law.
Unlock the full brief for Air & Liquid Sys. Corp. v. DeVries