Tort Law
Maritime Tort Case
Maritime Law
Navy Veterans
Common-Law Court
Asbestos
Product Manufacturer
Duty to Warn
Liability for Harms Caused by Later-Added
Third-Party Parts
Summary: In the maritime tort context, a product
manufacturer has a duty to warn when its product requires incorporation of a
part, the manufacturer knows or has reason to know that the integrated product
is likely to be dangerous for its intended uses, and the manufacturer has no
reason to believe that the product’s users will realize that danger.
In maritime tort cases, we act as a common-law
court, subject to any controlling statutes enacted by Congress. See Exxon
Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U. S. 471, 507–508 (2008).
Three approaches have emerged on how to apply
that “duty to warn” principle when a manufacturer’s product requires later
incorporation of a dangerous part in order for the integrated product to
function as intended. The first—the foreseeability rule—provides that a manufacturer
may be liable when it was foreseeable that its product would be used with
another product or part, even if the manufacturer’s product did not require use
or incorporation of that other product or part. The second—the bare-metal defense—provides
that if a manufacturer did not itself make, sell, or distribute the part or
incorporate the part into the product, the manufacturer is not liable for harm
caused by the integrated product—even if the product required incorporation of
the part and the manufacturer knew that the integrated product was likely to be
dangerous for its intended uses. A third approach, falling between those two,
imposes on the manufacturer a duty to warn when its product requires
incorporation of a part and the manufacturer knows or has reason to know that
the integrated product is likely to be dangerous for its intended uses.
The third approach is most appropriate for this
maritime context.
Requiring the product manufacturer to warn when
its product requires incorporation of a part that makes the integrated product
dangerous for its intended uses is especially appropriate in the context of
maritime law, which has always recognized a “special solicitude for the welfare”
of sailors. American Export Lines, Inc. v. Alvez,
446 U. S. 274, 285.
The maritime tort rule adopted here encompasses
all of the following circumstances, so long as the manufacturer knows or has
reason to know that the integrated product is likely to be dangerous for its
intended uses, and the manufacturer has no reason to believe that the product’s
users will realize that danger: (i) a manufacturer directs that the part be
incorporated; (ii) a manufacturer itself makes the product with a part that the
manufacturer knows will require replacement with a similar part; or (iii) a
product would be useless without the part.
(U.S. Supreme Court, March 19, 2019, Air &
Liquid Systems Corp. v. DeVries, Docket 17-1104, J. Kavanaugh)
