Macias v. Saberhagen Holdings, Inc.
282 P.3d 1069
Wash.2012Background
- Macias worked 1978–2004 as a tool keeper at Todd Shipyards, handling respirators used by shipyard workers.
- Workers wore respirators to filter asbestos and other contaminants; Macias cleaned and maintained them and handled dusty used parts.
- In 2008 Macias was diagnosed with mesothelioma; he and wife sued respirator manufacturers American Optical Corp., Mine Safety Appliances Co., and North America Safety Products USA.
- Plaintiffs alleged the manufacturers owed a duty to warn about asbestos exposure risk when cleaning/maintaining the respirators.
- Manufacturers moved for summary judgment, arguing no duty to warn under Simonetta v. Viad Corp. and Braaten v. Saberhagen Holdings because they did not manufacture the asbestos-containing source products.
- Trial court denied summary judgment; Court of Appeals reversed, holding no duty to warn because manufacturers were not in the chain of distribution of asbestos-containing products.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Simonetta/Braaten bar the failure-to-warn claim here? | Macias argues the respirator itself poses inherent risk and warrants a duty to warn. | MSSA and others contend they are not liable under Simonetta/Braaten since they did not manufacture the asbestos-containing source products. | No; Simonetta/Braaten do not control this case. |
| Are the respirator manufacturers in the chain of distribution for strict product liability? | Respirators inherently designed to filter contaminants, including asbestos, so manufacturers are in the chain for warnings. | Respirator makers did not manufacture the asbestos-containing products and thus are outside the chain of distribution under Simonetta/Braaten. | Yes; respirator manufacturers are in the chain of distribution and may owe warnings. |
| How does the Washington Product Liability Act apply to failure-to-warn claims here? | WPLA governs post-1981 exposures and supports a duty to warn given product-specific risk and maintenance. | WPLA does not necessarily expand liability to manufacturers outside the chain of distribution under Simonetta/Braaten. | WPLA applies; суд recognizes duty analysis under risk-utility/consumer-expectations; facts support potential duty. |
Key Cases Cited
- Simonetta v. Viad Corp., 165 Wn.2d 341 (2008) (general rule: manufacturer not liable to warn about dangers in products it did not manufacture)
- Braaten v. Saberhagen Holdings, 165 Wn.2d 373 (2008) (assembler liability and exceptions to chain-of-distribution rule)
- Koker v. Armstrong Cork, Inc., 60 Wn. App. 466 (1991) (pre-WPLA rule: substantial exposure before act may exclude application)
- Viereck v. Fibreboard Corp., 81 Wn. App. 579 (1996) (exposure timing and WPLA applicability in asbestos cases)
- Teagle v. Fischer & Porter Co., 89 Wn.2d 149 (1977) (two-sound-products warning when combination creates hazard)
- Falk v. Keene Corp., 113 Wn.2d 645 (1989) (design defect and warnings; strict liability principles pre-WPLA)
- Ayers ex rel. Ayers v. Johnson & Johnson Baby Prods. Co., 117 Wn.2d 747 (1991) (consumer expectations and warnings; foreseeability context)
- O’Neil v. Crane Co., 53 Cal.4th 335 (2012) (California discussion cited regarding adjacent-products theory)