Ecolex Logo
El portal del
derecho ambiental
Resultados de la búsqueda » Jurisprudencia

Conner v. Alfa Laval inc.

País/Territorio
Estados Unidos de América
Tipo de la corte
Nacional - corte inferior
Fecha
Feb 1, 2012
Fuente
UNEP, InforMEA
Nombre del tribunal
United States District Court, District of Pennsylvania
Juez
Robreno, E.C.
Número de referencia
09-cv-67099-ER
Idioma
Inglés
Materia
Desechos y sustancias peligrosas
Palabra clave
Responsabilidad/indemnización Sustancias peligrosas
Resumen
The issue arose in the consolidated asbestos products liability multidistrict litigation pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Defendants moved for summary judgment on the ground that they were not liable for injuries caused by asbestos products, such as insulation, gaskets, and packing, that were incorporated into their products or used as replacement parts, but which they did not manufacture or distribute.As the asbestos litigation has evolved, and the major manufacturing defendants have declared bankruptcy, the litigation has moved away from the manufacturers of asbestos to new types of defendants, including premises owners, and even those that manufactured so-called “bare-metal” products that contained or were later encapsulated in asbestos made by others. Litigants often refer to the defense raised in this case as the “bare-metal defense,” but it is more properly understood, as the court explained, as a challenge to a plaintiff’s prima facie case to prove duty or causation. Plaintiffs alleged they developed mesothelioma as a result of exposure to defendants products while working on vessels operated by the U.S. Navy. Plaintiffs did not, however, proffer evidence that defendants manufactured or distributed the particular asbestos components or replacement parts to which they were allegedly exposed. Instead, they argued that defendants were liable for all the intended and foreseeable uses of asbestos parts in connection with their original products. The court considered the availability and scope of the so-called “bare-metal” defense under maritime law. Plaintiffs raised two arguments to hold manufacturers liable for harm caused by asbestos products they did not manufacture or distribute. First, plaintiffs argued that under the integrated-products doctrine the “products” at issue were really defendants’ products together with the asbestos-containing components and replacement parts supplied by third parties. Second, plaintiffs argued that defendants had a duty to warn of the hazards posed by the foreseeable uses of their products. The court rejected both arguments. The first was not consistent with the law under the component parts doctrine. Even if the court were to accept that defendants were component-part manufacturers, a component-part manufacturer is not liable for injuries caused by the finished product into which the component is incorporated unless the component itself was defective at the time it left the manufacturer. The defective product here was the asbestos insulation, not the pumps and valves to which it was applied after defendants’ manufacture and delivery. Also, as a matter of law, defendants did not owe a duty to warn under maritime law of the hazards posed by products they did not manufacture or distribute. Having held as a matter of law that a manufacturer is not liable for harm caused by the asbestos products that it did not manufacture or distribute, the court concluded that plaintiffs failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether any of the defendants manufactured or distributed the asbestos products that caused the alleged injuries. For the reasons provided above, the Court granted Defendants’ motions for summary judgment.
Texto completo
COU-158076.pdf