WILMINGTON, Del. (Legal Newsline) - A company that made equipment to grind automobile brakes must face trial in Delaware on claims it failed to warn mechanics about the risk of inhaling asbestos fibers, a judge ruled, after determining Ohio law applied to the case and the state’s highest court would have allowed it to proceed.
Superior Court Judge Francis J. Jones rejected arguments by manufacturer Hennessy Industries that it had no duty to warn since it never shipped a machine containing asbestos. Citing court decisions from other states interpreting Ohio law, Judge Jones predicted that Hennessy could be found liable under an exception to the “bare metal defense” for companies that make machines that are likely to expose workers to asbestos when used as intended.
Lisa Estrada sued a number of companies including Honda Motors and Hennessy as representative of the state of Donald Jordonek, claiming he contracted mesothelioma from his job as a brake mechanic at a Goodyear Tire Center in Maple Heights, Ohio from 1972 to 1999. Hennessy inherited its liability from AMMCO Tools, which made brake lathes and grinders.
Ohio legislators passed a law in 2004 tightening the standard of proof for asbestos lawsuits, requiring plaintiffs to prove they were exposed to asbestos “that was manufactured, supplied, installed, or used” by the defendant and that the exposure was significant enough to cause disease. The standards had been looser under a 1995 Ohio Supreme Court ruling.
Hennessy argued the plain wording of the 2004 law meant it didn’t have any duty to warn because it didn’t supply any equipment containing asbestos. The plaintiff argued “used” is covered by another part of the law that defines claims as anything “based on, or in any way related to asbestos.”
Judge Jones acknowledged Ohio, like many states, allows a “bare metal defense” protecting companies against lawsuits over parts supplied by another firm. “But there are well recognized exceptions,” the court went on, including for products made “with the explicit purpose and intent of use with asbestos.” The judge cited cases from California and Rhode Island interpreting Ohio law this way. The question isn’t whether a company could have foreseen a product being used with asbestos, but whether the machine necessarily exposed workers to danger, the judge wrote.
“Where the intended use of a product inevitably creates a hazardous situation, it is reasonable to expect the manufacturer to give warnings, so long as there is proof that the intended use of the product inevitably created a hazardous situation,” the judge concluded.