189 A.3d 1255
Del.2018Background
- Robert Ramsey worked with asbestos-containing products at Haveg Industries for decades; his wife Dorothy routinely laundered his contaminated work clothes and later died of lung cancer.
- Dorothy (through her personal representative) sued two asbestos product manufacturers (Herty and Hollingsworth & Vose), claiming lack of warnings and safe laundering instructions caused her take‑home exposure.
- Manufacturers moved for summary judgment arguing Delaware precedents (Riedel, Price) treat employer take‑home claims as nonfeasance and impose no duty absent a special relationship, so manufacturers (more remote) owe no duty to spouses.
- The Superior Court granted summary judgment for the manufacturers, applying Price/Riedel, concluding the manufacturers had not committed misfeasance and no special relationship existed.
- The Delaware Supreme Court reversed and remanded: it held household launderers are foreseeable plaintiffs under Restatement §388 principles, but limited manufacturers’ duty—manufacturers may discharge the duty by providing adequate warnings and safe laundering instructions to the employer (sophisticated purchaser defense).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an employee’s spouse who launders contaminated clothes is a foreseeable plaintiff for a manufacturer’s failure-to-warn claim | Ramsey: spouse is foreseeable; manufacturers who know product is dangerous must warn foreseeable third parties under §388 | Manufacturers: Price/Riedel treat take‑home claims as nonfeasance; absent special relationship no duty to spouse; manufacturers more remote than employer | Held: Spouse is foreseeable; may sue manufacturer if manufacturer failed to warn the employer and thereby discharge its duty; employer warnings can also bar suit |
| Whether manufacturers’ conduct is misfeasance or nonfeasance (affects duty) | Ramsey: manufacturing and releasing asbestos is affirmative conduct (misfeasance) creating duty to foreseeable victims | Manufacturers: prior cases treated similar facts as nonfeasance for employers; therefore no duty absent special relationship; applying same to manufacturers bars liability | Held: Employer conduct is properly characterized as misfeasance (overruling prior aspects of Price/Riedel to the extent needed); manufacturers can also be liable but duty is circumscribed by reasonableness and foreseeability |
| Scope of manufacturer’s duty to warn in take‑home context (who must be warned) | Ramsey: manufacturers must ensure adequate warnings/safe laundering information reach those at risk (spouse) | Manufacturers: unreasonable to require direct warnings to household launderers; impractical and potentially limitless liability | Held: Manufacturer’s reasonable duty is to warn the employer (sophisticated purchaser/safe‑harbor); the manufacturer is liable only if it failed to warn the employer or knew the employer would not pass on adequate information |
| Whether employers’ immunity or limited liability should bar recovery against manufacturers | Manufacturers: illogical to expose manufacturers while employers (by doctrine/workers’ comp rules) may be insulated from tort liability | Ramsey: employer immunity does not negate manufacturers’ independent duty under products/warning law; both duties can be structured to avoid unfairness | Held: Court rejected immunizing manufacturers on this basis; it construes duties so both manufacturers and employers can discharge their obligations (manufacturer → employer → employee/household); employer safe‑harbor still protects manufacturers who adequately warn employers |
Key Cases Cited
- Riedel v. ICI Americas Inc., 968 A.2d 17 (Del. 2009) (addressed characterization of take‑home asbestos claims and whether plaintiff alleged misfeasance or nonfeasance)
- Price v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 26 A.3d 162 (Del. 2011) (held employer take‑home allegations characterized as nonfeasance for purposes of pleading; narrowly decided but later revisited)
- In re Asbestos Litigation (Mergenthaler), 542 A.2d 1205 (Del. Super. 1986) (adopted the sophisticated purchaser defense allowing a manufacturer to discharge warning duty by warning the purchaser/employer)
- Colgain v. [Multiple Defendants], 799 A.2d 1151 (Del. 2002) (discussed manufacturer’s duty to warn under Delaware law)
- Graham v. Pittsburgh Corning Corp., 593 A.2d 567 (Del. Super. 1990) (earlier articulation of manufacturer duty to warn and reasonable‑person standard)