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

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

These six consolidated cases are personal injury and wrongful death actions brought against manufacturers and distributors of asbestos products. Ps have raised a variety of legal theories to support their claims for damages. The important claim, for purposes of this appeal, is strict liability for failure to warn. Ds responded by asserting the state-of-the-art defense. They allege that no one knew or could have known that asbestos was dangerous when it was marketed. Ps in a motion for partial summary Judgment are seeking to strike the state-of-the-art defense. Ps based their motion on Freund v. Cellofilm Properties, Inc., where Justice Handler elaborated the difference between negligence and strict liability in a failure to warn case. He explained that in strict liability cases, knowledge of the dangerousness of the product is imputed to defendants. The plaintiff need not prove that the defendant knew or should have known of its dangerousness. The only issue is whether the product distributed by the defendant was reasonably safe. Ps reason that since Ds' knowledge of the dangers of the product is presumed, it is irrelevant whether the existence of such dangers was scientifically discoverable. Ds responded that Freund imputes only 'existing knowledge, the technical knowledge available at the time of manufacture.' The trial judge denied the motion, holding that Freund merely created a rebuttable presumption that defendants had knowledge of the dangers of their product. That presumption could be overcome by proof that the knowledge at issue was 'unknowable' at the time of manufacture. Ps 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.