May v. Air & Liquid Systems Corp.
100 A.3d 1284
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2014Background
- Philip Royce May, a Navy machinist mate (1956–1976), regularly replaced asbestos gaskets and packing in ship steam pumps and later developed mesothelioma.
- The pumps at issue were manufactured by Air & Liquid Systems Corp., Warren Pumps LLC, and IMO Industries; those pumps originally contained asbestos parts when delivered to the Navy decades earlier.
- May never worked on any pump during its maiden voyage and was never exposed to original parts made or sold by the pump manufacturers; his exposure came from replacement gaskets/packing made and supplied by others.
- The pump manufacturers neither required nor recommended specific replacement parts, did not place the replacement parts into the stream of commerce, and did not instruct May on removal/installation methods that generated asbestos dust.
- At summary judgment the pump manufacturers argued, and the circuit court held, they had no duty to warn about hazards from replacement parts they did not manufacture or market; the Mays appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendants had a duty to warn of hazards from asbestos-containing replacement parts | May: manufacturers should have duty to warn because harm was foreseeable and replacements would be used in their pumps | Manufacturers: no duty because they did not manufacture, market, sell, or place replacement parts into the stream of commerce | No duty to warn; summary judgment for defendants affirmed |
| Whether foreseeability alone creates a duty to warn | May: foreseeability of replacement use imposes warning obligation | Manufacturers: foreseeability alone insufficient; duty is legal question and limited by policy concerns | Foreseeability alone insufficient to impose duty |
| Whether Wood v. Ford is binding or dicta | May: Wood’s statements on replacement parts are dicta and not controlling | Manufacturers: Wood is controlling precedent and answers the novel duty question | Wood is an alternative holding, not dicta, and controls outcome |
| Whether other Maryland authorities (e.g., continuing duties) or statutes expand manufacturer duty | May: Zenobia and statutory definitions suggest broader continuing or defined manufacturer obligations | Manufacturers: Zenobia concerns warnings about a manufacturer’s own product; statutes don’t change duty principles | Court rejects expanded duty arguments; existing doctrine controls |
Key Cases Cited
- Ford Motor Co. v. Wood, 119 Md. App. 1 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1998) (holds a manufacturer has no duty to warn about asbestos hazards from replacement parts it did not manufacture or place in commerce)
- John Crane, Inc. v. Scribner, 369 Md. 369 (Md. 2002) (limits Wood only as to who decides certain damages-cap issues; otherwise Wood remains good law)
- O'Neil v. Crane Co., 53 Cal. 4th 335 (Cal. 2012) (applies same rule to pump manufacturers; refuses to impose liability for replacement parts made/sold by others)
- Braaten v. Saberhagen Holdings, 165 Wash. 2d 373 (Wash. 2008) (rejects strict liability where manufacturer did not place component in stream of commerce)
- Lindstrom v. A-C Prod. Liab. Trust, 424 F.3d 488 (6th Cir. 2005) (follows limitation of liability to parties in distribution chain)
- Faddish v. Buffalo Pumps, 881 F. Supp. 2d 1361 (S.D. Fla. 2012) (refuses to impose duty on pump manufacturers for asbestos insulation/replacement parts they did not control)
- Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. Zenobia, 325 Md. 420 (Md. 1992) (addresses continuing duty to warn, but limited to manufacturer’s own product)