Mack v. General Electric Co.
896 F. Supp. 2d 333
E.D. Pa.2012Background
- MDL asbestos exposure case involving Navy welder James Mack and shipbuilders Todd Pacific, Northrop Grumman, and General Dynamics.
- Plaintiff alleges negligence and strict product liability for failure to warn about asbestos hazards in shipboard products.
- Case transferred from California to Eastern District of Pennsylvania as part of MDL-875; issues involve maritime law boundaries and defenses.
- Defendants seek summary judgment based on the sophisticated user/purchaser defenses and the argument that a Navy ship is not a product.
- Court held maritime law applies and decided on three propositions: sophisticated user defense (recognized), no sophisticated purchaser defense (rejected for maritime asbestos cases), and Navy ship is not a product for strict liability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sophisticated user defense in maritime asbestos cases | Mack argues for recognition and application under maritime law | Defendants urge either California/state-law analogs or non-recognition under maritime law | Maritime law recognizes a sophisticated user defense (bar to negligence claims) but not a sophisticated purchaser defense; not applicable to strict liability. |
| Navy ship as a product for strict liability | Ship could be a product; strict liability could apply to ship components | A Navy ship is not a product under maritime strict liability | A Navy ship is not a product for purposes of maritime strict product liability. |
| Scope of promises/warnings when sophisticated user defense applies | Even with sophistication, end-user warnings may still be required | Sophisticated user defense collapses liability. | Sophisticated user defense bars negligent failure-to-warn claims; defense does not apply to strict product liability; warnings doctrine remains in negligence context. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gibbs ex rel. Gibbs v. Carnival Cruise Lines, 314 F.3d 125 (3d Cir.2002) (direction on admiralty choice of law principles)
- East River S.S. Corp. v. Transamerica Delaval, Inc., 476 U.S. 858 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1986) (federal maritime jurisdiction goals and product liability framework)
- Saratoga Fishing Co. v. J.M. Martinac & Co., 520 U.S. 875 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1997) (discussion of vessel vs. product in maritime liability)
- Conner v. Alfa Laval, Inc., 799 F.Supp.2d 455 (E.D. Pa.2011) (guidance on maritime application and localities connections test)
- Johnson v. American Standard, Inc., 43 Cal.4th 56 (Cal.2008) (sophisticated user defense under California law)
- O’Neal v. Celanese Corp., 10 F.3d 249 (4th Cir.1993) (intermediary purchaser/sophisticated purchaser considerations)
- Shipco 2295, Inc. v. Avondale Shipyards, Inc., 825 F.2d 925 (5th Cir.1987) (shipbuilder context in product liability decisions)
- In re Manbodh Asbestos Litigation Series, 2005 WL 3487838 (V.I.Super.) (collecting cases on sophisticated user/purchaser defenses)
- Willis v. BW IP Int’l, Inc., 811 F.Supp.2d 1146 (E.D. Pa.2011) (government contractor defense context in maritime asbestos cases)
- Boyle v. United Technologies Corp., 487 U.S. 500 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1988) (government contractor defense discussion)