Supreme Court Decision Expands Manufacturer's Duty To Warn

In a decision potentially expanding a manufacturer's duty to warn, the Supreme Court of Washington held that a manufacturer, not in the chain of distribution, is liable for its failure to warn of the dangers of a product.

In Macias v. Saberhagen Holdings, Inc. the Supreme Court of Washington addressed whether respirator manufacturers were responsible for health hazards resulting from cleaning noxious materials from their used products. The case itself involved a man, Leo Macias who worked as tool keeper at Todd Shipyards in Seattle, Washington from 1978 to 2004. In the shipyard, workers wore respirators manufactured by American Optical Corporation, Mine Safety Appliances Company, and North America Safety Products USA ("defendants") in order to filter various contaminants including asbestos. As tool keeper, Macias was responsible for collecting the used respirators and cleaning them before their reuse.

In 2008 Macias was diagnosed with mesothelioma and in June of that same year he and his wife filed a personal injury lawsuit against the defendants asserting negligence and product liability. The defendants subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment which was denied by the trial court. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the Supreme Court of Washington's precedent in Simonetta v. Viad Corp., 197 P.3d 127 (2008) and Braaten v. Saberhagen Holdings, 198 P.3d 493 (2008), precluded the suit as a matter of law because the defendants were not in the chain of distribution. The Supreme Court of Washington again reversed, holding that Simonetta and Braaten are distinguishable and do not foreclose claims against manufacturers such as the defendants because, where a product is "used exactly as intended and cleaned for reuse exactly as intended they inherently and invariably posed the danger of exposure to asbestos." The court made special note that there is no absolute rule for finding a manufacturer strictly liable for product liability, and that the "general rule" stating that a manufacturer must be in the chain of distribution is subject to exceptions.

The holding in Macias v. Saberhagen Holdings Inc. appears to be an unprecedented expansion of a manufacturer's duty to warn. In addition to a four justice dissent vehemently disagreeing with the majority's decision, Macias is also in conflict with O'Neil v. Crane Co., 53 Cal. 4th 335 (2012). In O'Neil, plaintiff sought to hold a pump manufacturer...