Cabasug v. Crane Co.
988 F. Supp. 2d 1216
D. Haw.2013Background
- Plaintiffs Robert and Joyce Cabasug sued multiple defendants (including Aurora Pump) alleging asbestos exposure aboard Navy ships caused Robert Cabasug’s mesothelioma; maritime law governs the dispute.
- Plaintiffs moved to strike defendants’ affirmative defenses of (1) the sophisticated user and (2) the sophisticated purchaser (learned intermediary) defenses; Aurora moved for summary judgment on a purchaser/user theory.
- The defenses derive from Restatement § 388 (and related duty-to-warn principles) and are applied variably across jurisdictions; courts sometimes conflate the two doctrines.
- The sophisticated user defense excuses a failure-to-warn where the ultimate user (here, Cabasug) already knew or reasonably should have known the danger; the sophisticated purchaser defense excuses a manufacturer who reasonably relies on an intermediary (here, the Navy) to warn end-users.
- Fact record showed evidence that Cabasug had some knowledge of asbestos hazards (safety manuals, safety meetings, union materials, respirator availability), but defendants produced no evidence they warned the Navy or reasonably relied on the Navy to warn its employees.
- The court held the sophisticated user defense is available under maritime law for both negligence and strict-liability duty-to-warn claims, but the sophisticated purchaser defense cannot be invoked here without evidence a defendant reasonably relied on the Navy to warn employees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether maritime law recognizes the sophisticated user defense | Plaintiffs: defense not recognized or, if recognized, Cabasug was not a sophisticated user | Defendants: maritime law recognizes the defense; Cabasug knew the risks | Court: Recognized the sophisticated user defense for negligence and strict-liability duty-to-warn claims; genuine factual dispute as to Cabasug’s knowledge precludes striking the defense |
| Whether maritime law recognizes the sophisticated purchaser (learned intermediary) defense in asbestos/ Navy context | Plaintiffs: defense not available or defendants failed to show reasonable reliance on the Navy | Defendants: could rely on Navy’s knowledge/warning responsibility | Court: Sophisticated purchaser defense is fact-dependent but GRANTED summary judgment to Plaintiffs because defendants produced no evidence they warned the Navy or reasonably relied on it |
| Whether the sophisticated user defense should be limited to negligence (not strict liability) | Plaintiffs: recognition should not extend to strict liability | Defendants: should apply to both negligence and strict liability for duty-to-warn | Court: Rejected limiting the defense to negligence; applies to both negligence and strict-liability duty-to-warn claims under maritime law |
| Whether Aurora’s variant (treating Navy as end-user so no duty to warn) succeeds | Plaintiffs: Navy is intermediary, not end-user; Aurora still had duty | Aurora: Navy was the end-user; Aurora had no duty to warn employees | Court: Denied Aurora’s summary judgment; employer/intermediary framing controls (purchaser analysis), not Aurora’s proposed end-user framing |
Key Cases Cited
- Mack v. Gen. Elec. Co., 896 F. Supp. 2d 333 (E.D. Pa. 2012) (recognized sophisticated user defense under maritime law but limited it to negligence)
- Martinez v. Dixie Carriers, Inc., 529 F.2d 457 (5th Cir. 1976) (applied user-sophistication principles under maritime law; considered users’ knowledge in duty-to-warn)
- Pan-Alaska Fisheries, Inc. v. Marine Const. & Design Co., 565 F.2d 1129 (9th Cir. 1977) (discussed adoption of Restatement § 402A principles in admiralty and cautioned about sophisticated-purchaser reliance facts)
- Oman v. Johns-Manville Corp., 764 F.2d 224 (4th Cir. 1985) (refused sophisticated purchaser instruction in shipyard asbestos case under Virginia law based on fact-specific factors)
- Kealoha v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 82 F.3d 894 (9th Cir. 1996) (outlined Restatement § 388 factors and affirmed fact-dependent sophisticated-purchaser analysis)
- East River S.S. Corp. v. Transamerica Delaval Inc., 476 U.S. 858 (U.S. 1986) (described maritime law as an amalgam of state and federal common-law rules guiding choice and application of doctrines)