MacIas v. Mine Safety Appliances Co.
244 P.3d 978
| Wash. Ct. App. | 2010Background
- Macias worked as a tool keeper at Todd Shipyards (1978–2004) and supplied respirators to shipyard workers.
- Respirators were designed to protect against various contaminants; filters could be interchanged for asbestos, dust, and fumes.
- Workers returned dusty respirators; Macias would throw them in a basket, then disassemble and scrub them, releasing dust.
- In May 2008, Macias was diagnosed with mesothelioma and sued respirator manufacturers for negligent and strict liability failure to warn.
- In January 2009, manufacturers moved for summary judgment citing Simonetta and Braaten; trial court denied; discretionary review granted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty to warn under negligence (section 388) for asbestos exposure from cleaning respirators | Macias contends respirators' purpose to protect against hazards creates a duty to warn about asbestos from cleaning. | Respirator makers argue no duty because they are not in the chain of distribution of asbestos per Simonetta/Braaten. | No duty to warn under section 388. |
| Impact of Simonetta and Braaten on duty to warn | Requests exception to general rule; argues proximity due to respirator safety purpose. | Simonetta/Braaten limit duty to those in the chain of distribution of the hazardous product. | Simonetta/Braaten control; no duty to warn. |
| Common law strict liability duty to warn | Macias asserts manufacturers have duty to warn under 402A due to danger from asbestos connected to their products. | No duty because manufacturers did not manufacture/supply asbestos and were not in the chain of distribution. | No duty under common law strict liability. |
| Washington Products Liability Act (WPLA) effect on duty to warn another manufacturer's product | WPLA risk-utility/consumer expectations tests might support a broader duty to warn. | WPLA does not broaden pre-WPLA duty; it does not modify Simonetta/Braaten. | WPLA does not require warning about dangers of another company's product. |
Key Cases Cited
- Simonetta v. Viad Corp., 165 Wash.2d 341 (2008) (duty to warn limited to chain of distribution; asbestos insulation involved)
- Braaten v. Saberhagen Holdings, 165 Wash.2d 373 (2008) (duty to warn limited to chain of distribution for replacement insulation)
- Ayres v. Johnson & Johnson Baby Prods. Co., 117 Wash.2d 747 (1991) (risk-utility and consumer expectations tests in product not reasonably safe analysis)