Lead Opinion
Appellee Marcella Fletcher was diagnosed with malignant pleural mesothelioma, which she attributed to years of laundering her father’s asbestos-dust-covered work clothing, and she sued Appellant CertainTeed Corporation, who manufactured the asbestos-laden water pipes with which her father had worked. In her complaint, she alleged, inter alia, negligent design and negligent failure to warn. Before the completion of discovery, the trial court granted Certain-Teed’s motion for summary judgment, and Fletcher appealed.
A majority of the Court of Appeals reversed the grant of summary judgment, concluding that CertainTeed had failed to demonstrate, as a matter of law, the absence of evidence that its product was defectively designed.
1. Below, the Court of Appeals held that Fletcher’s design-defect claim was governed by the risk-utility test adopted by this Court in Banks v. ICI Americas, Inc.,
This risk-utility analysis incorporates the concept of “reasonableness,” i.e., whether the manufacturer acted reasonably in choosing a particular product design, given the probability and seriousness of the risk posed by the design, the usefulness of the product in that condition, and the burden on the manufacturer to take the necessary steps to eliminate the risk.
(Emphasis supplied.) Banks,
the usefulness of the product; the gravity and severity of the danger posed by the design; the likelihood of that danger; the avoidability of the danger, i.e., the user’s knowledge of the product, publicity surrounding the danger, or the efficacy of warnings, as well as common knowledge and the expectation of danger; the user’s ability to avoid danger; the state of the art at the time the product is manufactured; the ability to eliminate danger without impairing the usefulness of the product or making it too expensive; and the feasibility of spreading the loss in the setting of the product’s price or by purchasing insurance.
Id. at 736 (1), n. 6. As this Court explained in Jones v. Nordictrack, Inc.,
[t]he “heart” of a design defect case is the reasonableness of selecting from among alternative product designs and adopting the safest feasible one. Banks v. ICI Americas, supra at 736 (1). Consequently, the appropriate analysis does not depend on the use of the product, as that may be narrowly or broadly defined, but rather includes the consideration of whether the defendant failed to adopt a reasonable alternative design which would have reduced the foreseeable risks of harm presented by the product.
As the Court of Appeals correctly recognized, it is the risk-utility analysis announced in Banks — and not CSX Transp. — that is controlling here. Further, in light of the unchallenged conclusion reached by the Court of Appeals — that “CertainTeed failed to carry its burden of showing plainly and indisputedly an absence of any evidence that its product as designed was defective under the risk-utility analysis,” Fletcher,
2. We must next determine whether the Court of Appeals correctly concluded that CertainTeed owed a duty to Fletcher to warn her regarding the dangers of asbestos dust that allegedly covered her father’s work clothing. In this instance, we
“In failure to warn cases, the duty to warn arises whenever the manufacturer knows or reasonably should know of the danger arising from the use of its product.” Chrysler Corp.,
While the Court of Appeals recognized below that Fletcher would not have seen any warning label placed on CertainTeed’s products, it nevertheless concluded that a warning could have permitted her father to take steps to mitigate any danger posed by the asbestos dust on his clothing. Fletcher,
Therefore, we think it unreasonable to impose a duty on Certain-Teed to warn all individuals in Fletcher’s position, whether those individuals be family members or simply members of the public who were exposed to asbestos-laden clothing, as the mechanism and scope of such warnings would be endless. As we stated in CSX Transp.,
it must also be recognized that there is a responsibility to consider the larger social consequences of the notion of duty and to correspondingly tailor that notion so that the illegal consequences of wrongs are limited to a controllable degree. The recognition of a common-law cause of action under the circumstances of this case would, in our opinion, expand traditional tort concepts beyond manageable bounds and create an almost infinite universe of potential plaintiffs. Accordingly, we decline to promulgate a policy which would extend the common law so as to bring the plaintiff within a class of people whose interests are entitled to protection from the defendant’s conduct.
(Citations and punctuation omitted.)
Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part.
Notes
CertainTeed did not challenge this conclusion in either its petition for certiorari or in its briefs on appeal; therefore, we do not address whether issues of proof may or may not entitle CertainTeed to summary judgment.
Design defect and failure to warn claims are not necessarily coextensive. Chrysler Corp.,
Concurrence Opinion
concurring specially
Although I concur in Division 1 of the majority opinion, I cannot concur fully in the analysis of Division 2. As it is written, Division 2 may give the impression that this Court is deciding issues relating to the duty to warn not only Fletcher, but the duty to warn her father as well. Our analysis in this case does not and should not reach or analyze the issue of CertainTeed’s duty to warn Fletcher’s father or the ramifications of any failure to warn Fletcher’s father. In her complaint, Fletcher premised her duty to warn claim on a duty to warn Fletcher or others similarly situated to her. Fletcher’s father is not similarly situated to Fletcher, so he is not encompassed by Fletcher’s duty to warn claim. Therefore, our analysis must be limited to the issues relating to the failure to warn Fletcher, not her father in this case. I also write separately to emphasize that our opinion likewise does not address whether Fletcher might have a claim as an alleged injured party resulting from the failure to warn Fletcher’s father, which is different, from a claim that Fletcher, herself, should have been warned. See Folsom v. Kawasaki Motors Corp., U.S.A., 509 FSupp.2d 1364, 1367 (II) (M.D. Ga. 2007) (question of fact remained whether improper warning to operator of jet ski caused injury to nearby swimmer). However, as already stated, Fletcher claimed that there was a duty to warn her and those similarly situated, not her father. Because I believe that Division 2 might cause confusion on all of these points, I must concur in judgment only as to that division.