Hughes v. A.W. Chesterton Co.
435 N.J. Super. 326
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | 2014Background
- Plaintiffs (four former workers) sued Goulds Pumps alleging asbestos-related disease from exposure to asbestos in pump component parts (gaskets/packing) that were regularly replaced during maintenance.
- Goulds manufactured pumps (until 1985) whose original gaskets/packing contained asbestos; replacement parts installed decades later cannot be traced to Goulds or any supplier identifiable in the record.
- Plaintiffs argued Goulds was strictly liable for failing to warn that the pump would foreseeably be serviced with asbestos-containing replacement parts; two plaintiffs also asserted negligence.
- Trial courts granted summary judgment for Goulds, finding plaintiffs could not show they were exposed to friable asbestos in parts manufactured, supplied, or sold by Goulds.
- The Appellate Division held Goulds owed a duty to warn at the time of initial sale because asbestos-containing components were inherent and replacements were foreseeable, but affirmed summary judgment because plaintiffs failed to prove causation linking their exposures to Goulds-manufactured or -sold asbestos products.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty to warn about asbestos in component parts replaced during maintenance | Goulds should be strictly liable for failing to warn because original pumps contained asbestos and replacements would foreseeably contain asbestos | Goulds contended liability limited to chain-of-distribution for the actual asbestos product that caused harm | Court: Duty to warn could be imposed at initial marketing when component asbestos was inherent and replacements were foreseeable; duty nondelegable |
| Causation standard — may plaintiffs rely on proximity to Goulds pumps without showing exposure to Goulds' asbestos product | Plaintiffs: proximity to Goulds pumps and routine replacement of asbestos parts suffices to infer causation | Goulds: plaintiffs must show exposure to friable asbestos from products manufactured, sold, or supplied by Goulds (Sholtis standard) | Court: Plaintiffs must show exposure to specific asbestos-containing products manufactured/sold by defendant; proximity to pump alone insufficient; summary judgment affirmed for lack of product identification |
| Applicability of strict liability vs negligence | Plaintiffs argued strict liability and negligence both apply; failure-to-warn strict liability appropriate because manufacturer knew risk | Goulds emphasized chain-of-distribution limits and lack of proof of exposure to its products | Court: Strict liability available and duty to warn exists here, but negligence claim also fails because plaintiffs did not prove Goulds knew or should have known the specific risk to these plaintiffs; summary judgment proper on negligence too |
| Scope of defendant liability for third-party replacement parts | Plaintiffs: manufacturer remains liable for hazards inherent in original product throughout its life | Goulds: no liability where it did not place replacement parts into the stream of commerce or require their use | Court: Manufacturer can have a duty to warn of hazards inherent in its product that foreseeably persist through component replacements, but liability still requires proof linking plaintiff exposure to defendant’s product |
Key Cases Cited
- Michalko v. Cooke Color & Chem. Corp., 91 N.J. 386 (1982) (manufacturers and distributors may be strictly liable for defectively designed products)
- Zaza v. Marquess & Nell, 144 N.J. 34 (1996) (strict liability requires defect when product left defendant’s control and caused injury to foreseeable user)
- James v. Bessemer Processing Co., 155 N.J. 279 (1998) (asbestos failure-to-warn requires both product-defect and medical causation; strict liability often appropriate)
- Becker v. Baron Bros., 138 N.J. 145 (1994) (not all asbestos-containing products are uniformly dangerous; focus on specific product)
- Coffman v. Keene Corp., 133 N.J. 581 (1993) (duty to take reasonable steps to ensure warnings reach those who will use the product)
- Feldman v. Lederle Labs., 97 N.J. 429 (1984) (elements of strict products liability)
- Beshada v. Johns-Manville Prods. Corp., 90 N.J. 191 (1982) (purpose of warning is to reduce product risk without hindering utility)
- Lohrmann v. Pittsburgh Corning Corp., 782 F.2d 1156 (4th Cir. 1986) (Sholtis standard: frequency, regularity, and proximity for circumstantial causation)