In a recent personal injury lawsuit over asbestos exposure, several shipbuilders were recently granted summary judgments on the basis that a Navy ship is not legally considered a “product” with relevance to strict product liability – the basis of virtually all product liability lawsuits.
Despite an apparent win for the defendants and a disappointment for the surviving family members of workers who died from mesothelioma, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied their motion for summary judgment regarding negligence claims. Presiding Judge Eduardo Robreno filed a memorandum detailing his decision on January 28th followed by two separate opinions focusing on each summary judgment request. He wrote:
“Negligence law focuses on the reasonableness of defendants’ conduct, while strict liability focuses on defendants’ product without regard to conduct or fault. The court holds that, under maritime law, a builder of a Navy ship… is liable in negligence if it failed to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances. On the other hand, defendants’ motions for summary judgment on plaintiffs’ strict liability claims are granted because… a Navy ship is not a product within the meaning of strict product liability law.”
The judge’s written opinion addressed defendants General Dynamics Corporation, Huntington Ingalls Incorporated, and Puget Sound Commerce Center, Inc.’s request of a summary judgment. A summary judgment is technically not a case dismissal, yet produces a very similar result for any named defendant.
Lawsuit claimant David Filer originally filed his claim in California before it was transferred to the MDL. In his lawsuit, Filer claims he was exposed to asbestos from insulation installed by the defendants while serving in the U.S. Navy aboard naval ships. Additionally, he alleges they are liable for failing to warn him of the serious health hazards of asbestos-containing products manufactured by others but installed by the defendants.
However, each defendant presented a counter-argument, claiming they:
“…had no duty to warn regarding the various asbestos-containing products it installed aboard ships it built for the Navy.”
Defendants Used Maritime Law Defense Strategy to Shirk Burden for Dangers of Asbestos
In the lawsuit, the defendants allege maritime law or California law is appropriate in awarding summary judgment. The court responded by ruling out state laws due to the location of the litigation and instead specifically referenced maritime law. Robreno wrote further:
“In order for maritime law to apply, a plaintiff’s exposure underlying a product liability claim must meet both a locality test and a connection test.”
The locality test requires that asbestos exposure or injury occur on navigable waters, which means work must be performed on board a ship that is docked at a shipyard or takes place on dry dock. The connection test is valid when a worker whose claims meet the locality test was primarily sea-based during the asbestos exposure. Robreno explained that because there is no controlling statute that applies here regarding the connection test, the court had to obtain some answer within maritime common law. He wrote:
“Before the court is the issue whether, under maritime law, a builder of Navy ships is liable under a negligence theory for asbestos-related injuries arising from products it installed aboard a ship.”
Negligence and Failure to Warn Still Largely in Question, Strict Liability not Violated
Ultimately, the court determined that the manufacturers of the asbestos-containing products bear the burden of preventing harm to the workers. Robreno said:
“The court explained that, as a matter of policy, to impose upon a Navy shipbuilder potential strict liability for each of the thousands of products assembled in a Navy ship pursuant to Navy specifications, would be an undue, unmanageable, and cumulative burden likely to discourage the activity of shipbuilding.”
The defendants still argued they feel it was unclear whether a Navy shipbuilder has a duty to warn of asbestos hazards to those who work aboard the ships it builds. However, the plaintiff claims the issue is whether the defendants’ failure to warn constitutes common law negligence or a breach of duty. Filer’s lawsuit further argues any warnings that were present were obscured during the installation process with paint and other carpentry. Ultimately, the court determined their ruling to be reasonable and consistent with prior decisions. Robreno concluded:
“Where a Navy shipbuilder has behaved reasonably under the circumstances, it will not incur negligence liability; and where it has not behaved reasonably under the circumstances, negligence liabilities not unwarranted.”
Indicating the matter still lies largely unresolved, he added:
“The court concludes that, under maritime law, a builder of a Navy ship is liable in negligence if it failed to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances and that such failure caused injury to the plaintiff – and that this is true regardless of the fact that a Navy shipbuilder cannot be liable under a theory of strict liability due to the fact that a Navy ship is not a ‘product’ for purposes of strict product liability.”
References:
