William P. Aubin v. Union Carbide Corporation
177 So. 3d 489
| Fla. | 2015Background
- William Aubin developed fatal peritoneal mesothelioma and sued Union Carbide, alleging SG-210 Calidria asbestos (sold to joint‑compound/texture‑spray manufacturers) caused his disease via defective design and inadequate warnings.
- Union Carbide mined and processed a short‑fiber chrysotile asbestos (SG‑210 Calidria), marketed its proprietary processing and purity to intermediaries, and sold it in bulk (not finished consumer products).
- At trial the jury found Union Carbide negligent and strictly liable (design and failure‑to‑warn), apportioning 46.25% fault to Union Carbide and awarding a multi‑million dollar judgment; intermediaries were also apportioned fault.
- The Third DCA reversed: it applied the Restatement (Third) (risk‑utility / reasonable alternative design), held there was insufficient proof that the processed product was more dangerous than raw asbestos (causation), and found the jury instructions on failure‑to‑warn misleading for omitting the learned intermediary defense.
- The Florida Supreme Court granted review, reaffirmed Florida’s prior adoption of the Second Restatement consumer‑expectations test (West), reversed the Third DCA, reinstated the judgment, and held (1) the Third Restatement is not the exclusive test for design defects in Florida, (2) causation was a jury question, and (3) the trial court did not reversibly err in its jury instructions because Union Carbide’s proposed learned‑intermediary instructions were legally inaccurate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Aubin) | Defendant's Argument (Union Carbide) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Proper legal standard for strict liability design defect | Consumer‑expectations test (Second Restatement) governs — West controls | Third Restatement (risk‑utility / requires reasonable alternative design) should govern; Third DCA followed it | Florida Supreme Court: reaffirmed Second Restatement consumer‑expectations test; disapproved Third DCA adoption of Third Restatement as exclusive rule |
| 2) Whether Aubin proved causation for design‑defect claim | Design and processing of SG‑210 made it more hazardous; expert testimony linked his exposure to SG‑210 to mesothelioma | Even if SG‑210 was processed, plaintiff produced no evidence SG‑210 was more dangerous than raw chrysotile re: mesothelioma; directed verdict appropriate | Court: Third DCA conflated design‑defect definition with causation. Causation is governed by ordinary tort rules and presented sufficient evidence to go to jury; directed verdict improper |
| 3) Learned intermediary defense applicability and jury instructions | Trial instruction that Union Carbide had a duty to warn end users was proper; no legal bar to instructing on duty to warn | Duty may be discharged by reasonably relying on a "learned intermediary"; jury should have been instructed on that defense | Court: Learned‑intermediary is a valid jury question; but Union Carbide’s proposed instructions were misleading/inaccurate, so trial court did not err in refusing them; no reversible error in instructions given |
| 4) Remedy — whether reversal / new trial required | Judgment should be reinstated (trial and jury findings proper) | New trial required because Third DCA correctly found legal error (standard + instructions) | Court quashed Third DCA decision, reinstated judgment, remanded with directions to reinstate; disapproved Third DCA cases adopting Third Restatement |
Key Cases Cited
- West v. Caterpillar Tractor Co., 336 So.2d 80 (Fla. 1976) (Florida Supreme Court adopting strict products liability and the consumer‑expectations approach)
- Union Carbide Corp. v. Aubin, 97 So.3d 886 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (Third DCA decision applying Restatement (Third), reversed by Florida Supreme Court)
- McConnell v. Union Carbide Corp., 937 So.2d 148 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (applied consumer‑expectations in asbestos context; court disapproved to extent it precluded learned‑intermediary instructions)
- Union Carbide Corp. v. Kavanaugh, 879 So.2d 42 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (held duty‑to‑warn to end users may remain when supplier’s warnings to intermediary were inadequate; jury decides adequacy)
- Kohler Co. v. Marcotte, 907 So.2d 596 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (Third DCA adoption of Restatement (Third) — disapproved)
- In re Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases — Report No. 13‑01, 160 So.3d 869 (Fla. 2015) (modern jury instructions use consumer‑expectations and risk‑utility as alternative definitions; no mandate to require proof of alternative design)