May v. Air & Liquid Systems Corp.
129 A.3d 984
Md.2015Background
- Philip May, a Navy machinist (1956–1976), later developed mesothelioma; suit brought by his widow Ruth May against pump manufacturers that sold steam pumps to the Navy containing asbestos gaskets/packing.
- Respondents’ pumps originally contained asbestos components per Navy specs; those original parts were later replaced by third-party asbestos-containing gaskets/packing to which May was exposed while performing routine maintenance.
- Respondents’ instruction manuals (provided with pumps) contained maintenance and parts-ordering sections but had no asbestos warnings; May testified he consulted manuals when servicing equipment.
- At summary judgment, Respondents argued they owed no duty to warn about third-party replacement parts they did not manufacture or place into the stream of commerce; trial court granted summary judgment and the Court of Special Appeals affirmed.
- The Maryland Court of Appeals granted certiorari and reversed: it held a narrow duty to warn can arise even where the manufacturer did not supply the replacement asbestos parts, subject to four limiting conditions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether manufacturer can be negligent for failing to warn about asbestos in replacement parts it did not supply | May: manufacturer should warn because asbestos was foreseeably used, essential to pump operation, and maintenance would expose workers who consult manuals | Respondents: no duty because they didn’t manufacture/sell the replacement parts or place them in the stream of commerce | Yes — duty exists in narrow circumstances (see four-factor test) |
| Whether manufacturer can be strictly liable for failing to warn about third-party asbestos replacement parts | May: strict liability duty parallels negligence here; duty to warn should apply when asbestos is integral and replacement inevitable | Respondents: strict liability limited to those who manufactured/placed the harmful product in the stream of commerce; cannot extend to untouched third-party parts | Yes — strict liability duty mirrors negligence test and applies in the same narrow circumstances |
| Whether replacement with identical asbestos parts constitutes a "substantial change" that defeats strict liability | May: identical replacements do not substantially alter the condition; danger remains same as at time of sale | Respondents: replacement after sale breaks the continuity required under §402A | Held: identical/asbestos-equivalent replacement is not a substantial change when asbestos was essential and replacement inevitable, so §402A may still apply |
| Proper scope of duty to warn (policy limits) | May: impose limited duty where risk is high and warning cost is low; manuals could have warned | Respondents: expanding duty would undermine chain-of-distribution rule and create open-ended liability | Held: duty is narrow and cabined by four requirements to avoid limitless liability |
Key Cases Cited
- Moran v. Faberge, 273 Md. 538 (explaining manufacturer duty to warn and low cost of warnings)
- Phipps v. General Motors Corp., 278 Md. 337 (adopting Restatement §402A strict liability framework)
- Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. Zenobia, 325 Md. 420 (applying Comment j and requiring knowledge for strict liability failure-to-warn)
- Patton v. U.S. Rugby Football, 381 Md. 627 (factors for determining duty of care in negligence)
- Gourdine v. Crews, 405 Md. 722 (noting overlap of negligence and strict liability in failure-to-warn cases)
- Ford Motor Co. v. Wood, 119 Md. App. 1 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. decision limiting duty to warns arising from parts outside defendant's distribution)
- O’Neil v. Crane Co., 53 Cal.4th 335 (Cal. 2012) (reaffirming general rule that manufacturers are not liable for harms caused by other manufacturers’ parts unless narrow exceptions apply)
- Quirin v. Lorillard Tobacco Co., 17 F. Supp. 3d 760 (denying summary judgment where record showed asbestos was necessary and would inevitably be used/replaced)