Halphen v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp.
1986 La. LEXIS 5719, 54 U.S.L.W. 2475, 484 So. 2d 110 (1986)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A manufacturer may be held strictly liable for injuries caused by a product that is 'unreasonably dangerous per se' or has a construction or composition defect, regardless of whether the manufacturer knew or could have known of the inherent danger. However, for claims based on failure to warn or defective design involving alternative products or designs, the manufacturer's knowledge is relevant and is judged by the standard of an expert in the field.
Facts:
- Samuel Halphen worked at a shipyard in Orange, Texas in 1945.
- Throughout his career, which included service in the Air Force, Halphen was exposed to asbestos-containing products.
- These products were sold by Johns-Manville Sales Corporation.
- Halphen subsequently developed malignant pleural mesothelioma, a cancer of the lung lining.
- Halphen died from this cancer as a result of his exposure to asbestos.
Procedural Posture:
- Jean Halphen, the widow of Samuel Halphen, sued Johns-Manville Sales Corporation in the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana based on diversity jurisdiction.
- The district court granted a pre-trial motion to exclude all evidence regarding whether Johns-Manville knew or could have known of the dangers of asbestos.
- Following a trial, a jury found that Johns-Manville's products were unreasonably dangerous and had proximately caused Samuel Halphen's death.
- The district court entered a judgment awarding damages to Mrs. Halphen.
- Johns-Manville Sales Corporation, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
- A three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit initially affirmed the district court's judgment.
- The Fifth Circuit, acting en banc, recalled the panel's decision and certified a question of law to the Supreme Court of Louisiana.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
In a strict products liability case, may a manufacturer be held liable for injuries caused by an unreasonably dangerous product if the manufacturer establishes that it did not know and reasonably could not have known of the inherent danger posed by its product?
Opinions:
Majority - Dennis, Justice
Yes, under certain circumstances. A manufacturer may be held liable for injuries caused by an unreasonably dangerous product, even if it did not and could not have known of the danger, if the plaintiff proves the product was either unreasonably dangerous per se or had a construction/composition defect. The court established four theories of strict products liability in Louisiana: 1) unreasonably dangerous per se, 2) construction/composition defect, 3) failure to warn, and 4) defective design. For the first two theories, which represent 'pure' strict liability, the manufacturer's knowledge is irrelevant because the focus is on the product itself. For the latter two theories, which impugn the manufacturer's conduct, evidence of what the manufacturer knew or should have known as an expert is admissible. This approach aligns with Louisiana's civil code principles of strict liability, where the guardian of a risk-creating thing bears the loss it causes, and serves public policy goals of deterring dangerous products and spreading costs.
Concurring - Watson, Justice
Yes. The inability of a defendant to know or prevent a risk is not a defense in a strict liability case. The core inquiry should be whether a product is unreasonably dangerous, determined by weighing its risk against its utility. The majority's creation of a new 'unreasonably dangerous per se' classification unnecessarily complicates the analysis and fails to squarely answer the certified question, which should be answered with a simple affirmative.
Dissenting - Marcus, Justice
No. A manufacturer cannot be held liable if it establishes as an affirmative defense that the inherent danger posed by its product was not discoverable using the prevailing scientific and technical knowledge under the 'state of the art' at the time. Louisiana's strict liability jurisprudence presumes a manufacturer knows what is discoverable, but it was never intended to make a manufacturer an insurer for unknowable risks. Imposing liability for dangers that a manufacturer was powerless to prevent is fundamentally unfair and extends liability beyond what prior precedent established.
Analysis:
This decision bifurcates Louisiana's strict products liability doctrine, creating a category of 'pure' strict liability for products deemed 'unreasonably dangerous per se.' By making the manufacturer's knowledge irrelevant in these cases, the court significantly eased the plaintiff's burden of proof in latent-disease cases, such as those involving asbestos, where proving corporate knowledge from decades prior is difficult. The ruling firmly places the economic burden of unknowable risks associated with inherently dangerous products on the manufacturer, who is better positioned to spread the cost. However, by preserving a 'state of the art' defense for failure-to-warn and some design defect claims, the court balanced absolute consumer protection with fairness to manufacturers dealing with evolving scientific understanding.
