Union Carbide Corp. v. Aubin
2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 13921
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Aubin sued Union Carbide in Miami-Dade Circuit Court for asbestos-related product liability claims, including design, manufacturing, and warning defects; Aubin settled/dismissed other defendants, leaving Union Carbide.
- Aubin asserts peritoneal mesothelioma from exposure at Desoto Lakes construction site where SG-210 Calidria asbestos was used in joint compounds and texture sprays.
- SG-210 Calidria was marketed as highly efficient due to Union Carbide’s proprietary processing, including centrifugation to remove fibers.
- Evidence showed the sanding/spraying at the Desoto Lakes site created dust clouds exposing Aubin, who supervised and worked around the joint compounds.
- Warnings: Union Carbide and intermediaries did not place warnings on products; OSHA warning existed since 1972, and Union Carbide later claimed to warn their bags starting 1968, though witnesses disputed attribution.
- Trial court instructed the jury with a Union Carbide-duty-to-warn-end-users instruction drawn from McConnell; the jury found for Aubin with significant noneconomic damages and the court entered a reduced judgment after settlements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Governing standard for design defect liability | Aubin argues Kohler/Third Restatement apply to design defect. | Carbide argues Second Restatement controls due to McConnell | Third Restatement governs; design defect claim viability analyzed under Third Restatement. |
| Whether SG-210 Calidria was defectively designed | Calidria’s processing made it a designed product with dangerous design. | Even if designed, no evidence shows design caused Aubin’s mesothelioma. | Design defect claim fails because no evidence shows design caused the harm; remand on warning issue only. |
| Whether design defect proof requires reasonable alternative design | Evidence of manifest unreasonableness suffices without a reasonable alternative design. | Plaintiff must show a reasonable alternative design. | Manifestly unreasonable design shown; alternative design need not be proven for liability. |
| Whether Union Carbide discharged the duty to warn | Intermediaries’ warnings were inadequate; direct warnings were needed. | Reasonableness governs reliance on intermediaries; jury should decide. | Question of fact; sufficient evidence to submit duty-to-warn-on-end-users to jury. |
| Judiciary misinstruction regarding duty to warn | Trial court misled by not explaining reliance on intermediaries. | Instruction not to mislead; duty to warn was properly framed. | Trial court’s warning-defect instruction was misleading; new trial ordered on that issue. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kohler Co. v. Marcotte, 907 So.2d 596 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (adopts Third Restatement component parts doctrine for product liability)
- Agrofollajes, S.A. v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., 48 So.3d 976 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (rejects consumer expectations as independent design defect standard; adopts Third Restatement risk-utility)
- West v. Caterpillar Tractor Co., 336 So.2d 80 (Fla. 1976) (Second Restatement adopted; warning and design considerations discussed)
- McConnell v. Union Carbide Corp., 937 So.2d 148 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (influenced jury instructions on learned intermediary concept)
- Kavanaugh v. United States Cocoa Corp., 879 So.2d 45 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (discusses intermediary warnings and jury questions regarding adequacy of warnings)
- Brito v. County of Palm Beach, 753 So.2d 109 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (warnings reasonableness questions for jury unless clear)
- Felix v. Hoffmann-LaRoche, Inc., 540 So.2d 102 (Fla. 1989) (learned intermediary generally directs warnings to physicians)
- Hayes v. Spartan Chem. Co., 622 So.2d 1352 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) (acknowledges learned intermediary concept outside prescription drugs)
- E.C. v. Katz, 731 So.2d 1268 (Fla. 1999) (collateral estoppel concerns on multi-case warnings)