The applicable rule of law for this case will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P worked as a construction supervisor for his father's company between 1972 and 1974. P was exposed to and inhaled respirable dust created by the sanding and sweeping of drywall joint compounds and the spraying of ceiling texture sprays. The joint compounds and texture sprays contained asbestos, and P did not know that he was inhaling asbestos fibers. In 2008, P was diagnosed with malignant peritoneal mesothelioma, which is a fatal, incurable form of cancer in the lining of the abdomen. P sued D alleging that his disease was caused by asbestos in joint compounds and texture sprays designed, manufactured, and sold by third parties (such as Georgia-Pacific) that contained asbestos supplied by D. P went to trial solely against D on theories of strict liability design defect, strict liability failure to warn, and negligent failure to warn. The evidence showed that D mined and processed a naturally occurring, unique short fiber form of chrysotile asbestos, formed the asbestos into pellets to reduce dust, packaged it in bags, and sold it in bulk under the trade name SG-210 Calidria for use in many products, including joint compounds and texture sprays. D's asbestos was 99.9% pure in comparison to competitors' asbestos that contained filler. D specifically marketed its product to intermediary manufacturers for the use of asbestos in products such as joint compounds. D was not involved in the formulation, packaging, or sale of the end products. The intermediary manufacturers combined the asbestos with other ingredients to make end products. The evidence established that SG-210 Calidria was chrysotile asbestos that had been subjected to Union Carbide's carefully designed asbestos processing regimen. During D's process, the chrysotile asbestos was placed through a centrifuge multiple times in order to separate the chrysotile fibers and thereby increase the efficiency of the asbestos when added to water. Because of this process, 'Calidria asbestos generally goes twice as far, on a pound-for-pound basis, as . . . other commercial types used in tape joint compounds.' There was conflicting evidence as to whether D properly warned its intermediary manufacturers-as well as the designers, manufacturers, and sellers of the joint compounds and texture sprays at issue-about the then-known dangers of its product or whether D engaged in a misinformation campaign, concealed the truth about the dangers of asbestos from its customers, and did not put warning labels on its asbestos bags. D was aware of the numerous dangers of its product. In 1972, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) mandated warnings for asbestos and certain asbestos-containing products, and D began placing this new warning on the bags of asbestos it sold. There was evidence that D had commissioned a study that showed that short asbestos fibers-like those in D's SG-210 Calidria asbestos-were actually more dangerous than longer fibers in increasing the risk of producing tumors. P testified that he never wore any kind of protective device and did notrecall seeing warnings on the products he used. P presented expert testimony to demonstrate that exposure to respirable asbestos, such as the SG-210 Calidria, causes peritoneal mesothelioma and that exposure to D's asbestos through the ordinary use of the joint compounds and texture sprays was a substantial contributing cause of his peritoneal mesothelioma. D presented expert testimony that chrysotile asbestos, such as the type manufactured by D, is no more likely to cause mesothelioma in its designed state than in its pure state. D moved for a directed verdict, which the trial court denied. The court instructed the jury on consumer expectations and negligence in failing to warn. The jury returned a $14,191,000 verdict for P, finding that D's negligence was the legal cause of P's damages and that D placed products on the market with a defect that was the legal cause of P's damages. The jury also found that some of the intermediaries were liable, attributing only 46.25% of the fault to D and apportioning the remaining 53.75% to several intermediaries whose 'negligence or defect' it found to be a contributing cause of P's damages. D appealed. The Appeals Court reversed, holding that the trial court erred by denying D's motion for directed verdict as to the design defect claim and thatD was entitled to a new trial on P's failure to warn claim. It held that the trial court committed reversible error by applying the Second Restatement, rather than the Third Restatement, to strict products liability design defect claims while the trial court used the Second Restatement's 'consumer expectations' standard. It held that P failed to present evidence that the defective design of the product caused P's harm because the asbestos in SG-210 Calidria was no more dangerous in its designed and manufactured state than asbestos was as a raw material. It also held that the trial court failed to instruct the jury that D's duty to warn could be discharged by reasonable reliance on an intermediary. P appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.